Unauthorized high-voltage electric fencing without safeguards supports inferred knowledge of likely death under Section 105 BNS.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 77/2025, Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan, registered under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), alleging that he installed an unauthorised electric fence around land and that a 12-year-old child came into contact with it and died by electrocution.

The applicant contended that he lacked any intention to cause death, did not own the land or electricity connection, and had installed the fence in an L-shape to protect the land from wild animals.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the fence used 10 mm wire carrying 220–225 volts without a regulator, insulator, circuit breaker, warning sign, or other safety device, and that the trial court had already framed a charge under Section 105 BNS.

The applicant stated that a revision against the charge-framing order had been filed but remained under Registry objections.

The Court examined the satellite image and found that the fencing separated two plots rather than lying between the applicant’s land and forest land.

Whether, in the circumstances, the applicant was entitled to regular bail in the case alleging death caused by an unauthorised electrified fence under Section 105 BNS.

Whether the applicant could prima facie rely on absence of intention or lack of ownership/control over the land and electricity connection to seek bail.

Whether the nature of the electric fencing demonstrated knowledge that it was likely to cause death, notwithstanding the applicant’s claimed purpose of protecting the land from wild animals.

The Court applied Section 105 BNS, under which culpable conduct causing death may attract criminal liability where the requisite intention or knowledge is established.

At the bail stage, the Court assessed whether the surrounding circumstances disclosed a prima facie case and whether the applicant’s release was appropriate, without conducting a final determination of guilt.

The Court treated the unauthorised installation of a 220–225-volt electric fence without safety devices or public warnings as conduct so imminently dangerous that the applicant could not plausibly claim ignorance of its likelihood of causing death.

The Court also considered the fact that the trial court had framed charge under Section 105 BNS, although the applicant’s revision against that order was stated to be pending at the Registry stage.

No precedent was relied upon by the Court; it noted that the authorities cited by the applicant concerned conviction and were not relevant to the bail determination.

The Court rejected the applicant’s explanation that the fence had been installed to protect the land from wild animals because the satellite image showed that it separated two plots and did not lie between the applicant’s property and a forest area.

The fence carried a dangerous voltage of 220–225 volts and had been installed without regulatory approval, circuit breakers, insulation, warning signs, or other safeguards, despite children playing in the adjoining area.

These circumstances supported a prima facie inference of knowledge that contact with the fence could cause death.

The Court also found that the applicant’s lack of formal ownership of the land or electricity connection did not substantially assist him, since the investigation indicated that he cultivated and managed the land.

In view of the charge already framed under Section 105 BNS and the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the Court found no basis to grant bail at that stage.

The application for bail and the accompanying application were dismissed.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the applicant.