1 2026:CGHC:25659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 912 of 2026 Sunny Thakur S/o Harendra Singh Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 87 A, Ward No. 6, Mudhipaar, Baghera, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Somani, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2026 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. 91/2026 registered at Police Station Somani, District - Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that on 08.05.2026, deceased Yaseem Khan, along with about ten of his friends, had KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 gone to Bus House Resort situated at Village Jhuradbari, Mangata Forest Awareness Centre, for celebrating the birthday of his friend, Krishna Soni. It is alleged that after enjoying in the swimming pool of the resort, while coming out of the pool area, the deceased slipped on the wet and slippery tiles and collided with an iron show- light pole installed near the swimming pool. It is further alleged that the said iron pole was carrying electric current and, upon coming into contact with it, the deceased got electrocuted and became stuck to the pole, resulting in his death due to electric shock. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that the present applicant, Sunny Thakur, who was operating the resort, along with the owner of the resort, was fully aware that the iron show-light pole installed near the swimming pool was in a damaged and hazardous condition. The holder of the pole was found broken, the bulb was missing, exposed electrical wires were present inside the pole, and electric current was flowing through the structure, thereby posing a serious risk of electrocution to the visitors. Despite having knowledge of such dangerous conditions, the applicant allegedly failed to undertake necessary repairs, provide adequate safety measures, or deploy staff to ensure the safety of guests visiting the resort. Consequently, a case was registered at Police Station Somani vide Crime No. 91/2026 for the offence punishable under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and investigation was set into motion. During investigation, it was further alleged that the applicant absconded after the incident, due to which documentary evidence relating to the resort could not be 3 collected immediately. The investigation, prima facie, revealed that the death of deceased Yaseem Khan occurred due to electrocution caused by the negligent and reckless conduct of the applicant while operating the Bus House Resort. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged and that the unfortunate incident in question was purely accidental in nature. There is no material available on record to indicate that the applicant had any intention or knowledge to cause the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are based merely on assumptions and that the actual cause and circumstances leading to the incident are matters to be adjudicated during trial. He further contends that, as per the prosecution case itself, the deceased had visited the resort along with his friends for celebrating a birthday party and, during the course of the celebration, had consumed liquor. Therefore, the possibility that the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, accidentally slipped near the swimming pool area cannot be ruled out and, thus, the incident appears to be a tragic accident arising out of the circumstances prevailing at the spot. It is also submitted that the entire case is based upon documentary and physical evidence already available with the prosecution and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the applicant to custodial interrogation. The applicant is a permanent resident of the local area, having a fixed place of residence and business, and 4 there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel also submits that the owner of the resort, who is similarly situated, has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant, who was merely operating the resort, is also entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the present applicant was operating and managing the Bus House Resort at the relevant point of time and was fully aware of the hazardous condition of the electrical installations situated near the swimming pool. It is submitted that, despite having knowledge that the iron show-light pole was in a damaged condition, its holder was broken, the bulb was missing and exposed electrical wires carrying live current were present inside the structure, the applicant neither took any steps to get the defect rectified nor informed the owner of the resort about the dangerous condition so as to ensure necessary repairs and safety measures. It is further submitted that due to the negligent and reckless conduct of the applicant in permitting the guests to use the swimming pool area despite being aware of the imminent danger, the deceased came into contact with the electrified pole and lost his life. He further contended that the bail granted to the co-accused owner by the learned trial Court cannot enure to the benefit of the present applicant as the case of the applicant stands on a different footing. According to the prosecution, the present applicant was directly responsible for the day-to-day operation and management 5 of the resort and, despite being fully aware of the defective electrical installation, failed to take any preventive measures, thereby prima facie rendering him directly responsible for the unfortunate incident. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and the material available on record and further considering the fact that the co-accused, namely, Pravin Kumar Dewangan, the owner of the concerned resort, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26.05.2026 and further the applicant has no criminal antecedent, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Sunny Thakur on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted 6 with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant 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) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal