1 2025:CGHC:2287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 290 of 2025 Luv Kumar Chouhan S/o Sakirtan Chouhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Vill. Nawapara B, Thana Pussour, Distt. Raigarh, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 108/2024, registered at Police Station : Sariya, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code and 135 of Electricity Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant took place on 20.05.2005. On 04.09.2005, at around 6 to 7 PM, while the applicant’s wife switched on a table fan, she received an electric shock. She was immediately taken to the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.15 11:36:57 +0530 2 hospital but could not survive. Based on the marg intimation, the police conducted an investigation and closed the case, stating that no cognizable offence was made out. However, following a complaint by the deceased’s relative, when the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Court of Sessions did not take cognizance of the complaint, a petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court. Under the High Court’s directions, the police re-investigated the matter, but they did not initially register an offence. Subsequently, the relative of the deceased filed a contempt petition before the Hon’ble High Court. Following this, the police registered an FIR and, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the applicant approximately one year after the death of his wife. The allegation against the applicant is that he had illegally taken an electricity connection, which was not properly installed. As a result, his wife received an electric shock and died. Based on these allegations, offences under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the Electricity Act have been attributed to the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that witnesses have not state anything against the applicant but the continuous effort of the family member of the deceased when an application of the contempt of Court act has been filed then the police had no choice but to file the charge-sheet against the applicant after the 19 years of the death of his wife. He further submits that the relative of the deceased has 3 made complaint and effort has made the allegations against the applicant for the commission of the said allegation. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 25.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant had illegally taken an electricity connection, which was not properly installed. As a result, his wife received an electric shock and died. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that witnesses have not state anything against the applicant but the continuous effort of the family member of the deceased when an application of the contempt of Court act has been filed then the police had no choice but to file the charge-sheet against the applicant after the 19 years of the death of his wife and the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 25.11.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 4 7. 4 7. Let applicant, Luv Kumar Chouhan, involved in Crime No. 108/2024, registered at Police Station : Sariya, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code and 135 of Electricity Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, 5 before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan