Grant of regular bail warranted upon filing of charge-sheet and absence of criminal antecedents.

On October 22, 2025, the deceased, Pushwaram, was searching for his niece in a forest when he came into contact with an electrified G.I. wire and died

The prosecution alleged that the applicants, in furtherance of a common object to hunt wild pigs, had illegally connected the wire to a transformer

An FIR was registered on October 28, 2025, after a seven-day delay

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicants under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Electricity Act

The applicants, who have been in custody since December 9, 2025, moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing that they were falsely implicated, no evidence was seized from them, and the trial would be prolonged

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the stage of the proceedings and the nature of the evidence

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of regular bail

The substantive charges were framed under Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the BNS, along with Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, relating to the illegal use of electricity

The court also adhered to the principle that bail may be granted when the investigation is complete, the accused has no criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to be protracted

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations, noting the prosecution's claim that the applicants' "unlawful and negligent act" of electrifying the forest for hunting led to a human death

However, the Court balanced this against several mitigating factors: (i) the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed; (ii) the applicants had been in detention since December 9, 2025; (iii) the applicants had no prior criminal record; and (iv) the conclusion of the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary

The holding was strictly conditioned on the applicants' compliance with procedural mandates, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a requirement for personal appearance during key trial stages (framing of charges, recording of statements), and penalties for the misuse of liberty

The Court emphasized that any default in these conditions would allow the trial court to treat the bail as abused and proceed in accordance with law