1 2025:CGHC:48996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1478 of 2025 Kanhaiya Mastake S/o Shri Bhagela Mastake Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bnaranka, Post Office Tipni P.S.- Thankhamariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Thankhamariya, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 133/2025 registered at Police Station – Thankhamariya, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 135 of C.G. Electricity Act 2003 & under Section 106(1) of BNS 2023. 2. As per the case of the persecution the F.LR. was lodged on 30.08.2025 by One Matruram Kashyap against the present applicant VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.25 11:01:46 +0530 2 namely Kanhaiya Mastake, for the incident alleged to have been occurred on 03.08.2025. It has been alleged that, the applicant has drawn an unauthorized electrical connection through PVC cable from the cut-out of transformer for functioning of a pump in his agricultural land for irrigation purposes. The said unauthorized connection was drawn through the fencing of the applicant's agricultural land, and the PVC cable, having been cut in between, came into contact with the fencing wire and the fencing wire became charged. It has been further alleged that the owner of the agricultural land prior to that of the applicant namely Parmanand Kashyap (deceased) came into contact of the said fence and consequently suffered electrocution, resulting in his death. Hence the F.LR has been lodged against the present applicant under section 135 of Chhattisgarh Electricity Act 2003 & 106(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence the unfortunate death of the deceased was purely accidental, and there is no evidence to show that the applicant had deliberately connected the PVC cable to the fencing with knowledge that it could cause electrocution, as the incident arose out of circumstances beyond his control; the applicant already had a sanctioned electricity connection in his agricultural land, and any alleged irregularity arose due to technical faults and bad weather, without any dishonest intent, and therefore, Section 135 of the Electricity Act or Section 106(1) BNS is not attracted, the incident occurred within the applicant’s own land, the deceased was trespassing, and the applicant had no legal duty of care towards him the essential ingredients of Section 106(1) BNS 3 (corresponding to Section 304A IPC) or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC, requiring knowledge and gross negligence, are absent as the applicant neither intended nor knew that his act could cause death, as clarified by judicial precedents including Yuvraj Laxhmilal Kanther vs State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC Online SC 520); the alleged offences are punishable with limited imprisonment, and pre-trial custody would amount to undue punishment; the applicant, being a 60-year-old farmer and the sole breadwinner of his family, is dependent on agriculture for livelihood, has permanent residence at Village Bnaranka, Post Tipni, P.S. Thankhamariya, District Bemetara (C.G.), and is not likely to misuse liberty or abscond; he is willing to cooperate with the investigation, abide by all directions and conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the materials available on record, without commenting on the merits, this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Kanhaiya Mastake, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of 4 the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav