Regular bail granted for culpable homicide involving electrified wire traps following charge sheet submission.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on December 9, 2025, in connection with the death of one Pushwaram

On October 22, 2025, the deceased died due to electrocution after coming into contact with a G.I. wire spread in a forest

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons illegally connected the wire to a live transformer to hunt wild pigs

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

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences involving culpable homicide and illegal use of electricity

The applicant contended that the case relies on circumstantial evidence and that the seizure of wire and bottles from an open place does not establish a link to the crime

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the completion of the investigation and his period of detention

The court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the grant of regular bail

Substantive charges were brought under Section 135-1(b) of the C.G. Electricity Act regarding the illegal diversion of electricity

the court referred to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Section 105 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 238 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 3(5) (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations—specifically that the applicant’s common intention to hunt resulted in a human death—against procedural and personal factors

It noted that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet was already filed, meaning the applicant’s further custodial interrogation was likely unnecessary

The court emphasized that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and has been incarcerated since December 9, 2025

Given that the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time to conclude, and without commenting on the merits of the circumstantial evidence, the court determined that continued pre-trial detention was not warranted

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant not seeking unnecessary adjournments, appearing personally for key trial stages (such as framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and complying with provisions regarding the misuse of liberty under Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS