Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35747 (CHH)

SUKHDEV SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/7715/2026 · 2026-09-14

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010317632026 2026:CGHC:40216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7715 of 2026 1 - Sukhdev Singh S/o Late Dhoukal Singh Gond, Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Lakrapara (Sargudipara), P. S. Khadgawan, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khadgawan, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.09.2026 Heard. 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.101/2026, registered at Police Station Khadgawan, District – Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable NIRMALA RAO 2 under Section 105 of BNS 2023 & Section 135-1(a) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 2) As per the case of the prosecution, on 20.6.2026 at about 5:30 p.m., the deceased, Rakesh Singh, aged about 7 years, came into contact with a live electric wire which had been used as a fence in the field by the present applicant. On account of electrocution, Rakesh Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The FIR was lodged on 1.7.2026. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail since 1.7.2026, and there is no material to establish that the field where the electric fencing was used belonged to the present applicant. He would submit that there are no criminal antecedents against the present applicant and that the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the fact that the deceased came into contact with a live electric wire which had been put up around the field by the present applicant and, thus, there was no intention to commit murder, and that the charge-sheet has been filed, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7) Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for 3 a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :- (i) 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, (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (iv) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observations made in the course of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi