Patna High Court
Shambhu Sahani @ Shambhu Sahni @ Sambhu SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that mere ownership of the land does not constitute sufficient basis for criminal liability and, lacking direct evidence, anticipatory bail was warranted.
Summary
The petitioner, Shambhu Sahani, was named in an FIR for the death of the informant's husband, who allegedly died from electrocution by an electric fence in a tobacco field owned by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that mere ownership of the land could not establish criminal liability, especially as there was no direct evidence linking him or his employees to the fencing. The informant claimed the petitioner and his family were seen collecting the wire after the incident, but the court noted the informant was not an eye‑witness to the erection of the fence and independent witnesses did not corroborate the allegation. The court held that suspicion based solely on ownership was insufficient for denial of bail and, under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties. Additionally, the court directed the district authority to consider any compensation claim by the informant under the victim compensation scheme.
Issues considered
- Whether ownership of the land where an illegal electric fence was erected makes the owner criminally liable for death caused by the fence.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in view of the evidentiary material presented.
- Whether the informant's testimony and circumstantial evidence are sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) — s. 357(A)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal liability
- landowner
- electric fence
- homicide
- Section 105 BNS
- Section 3(5) BNS
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- victim compensation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35215 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Shambhu Sahani @ Shambhu Sahni @ Sambhu Sahani S/o Mahendra Sahni
R/o Vill- Chandrahatti, P.S.- Kundhani, Distt- Muzaffapur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Informant : Mrs. Archana Shahi, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
6 21-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Kudhani P.S.
Case No. 08 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 105, 3(5) of BNS.
3. As per FIR, the husband of the informant
aged about 35 years died due to electrocution what he
received from the electric wire fence in tobacco field of
the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35215 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
2/5
the entire implication of this petitioner is based upon the
fact that he is the land owner. It is submitted that it is a
criminal prosecution and merely on the fact that the
petitioner is a land owner he cannot be implicated with
present criminal case. It is submitted that it is not a case
where the occurrence took place between the four corner
of the wall, rather it is a common practice of locality to
fence their field with electric wire to save their cultivation
from local animals like nilgai etc., therefore, it cannot be
said that deceased husband of the informant who is
resident of the same village was not aware about such
type of practice. It is conceded though during argument
that fencing of field with live current wire is an illegal act
but as far criminal liability is concerned merely on the
basis of suspicion being owner of the field cannot be said
founded upon. It is submitted that even as per FIR
petitioner was not found to engage himself in fencing the
field in actual or by using his employee.
5. Arguing further, it is pointed out that even
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35215 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
3/5
independent witnesses failed to support the involvement
of this petitioner with present crime in question during
investigation. While concluding arguments, it is submitted
that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.
7. Mrs. Archana Shahi, learned senior counsel
for the informant while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that petitioner alongwith his family members
who are Arti Kumari and Rinku Devi were found indulged
in collecting the wire after the occurrence to save
themselves which was witnessed by informant herself. It
is submitted that after public cry the petitioner left the
place of occurrence leaving collected/ dismantled wiring
which was seized by the police. It is submitted that the
petitioner being owner of the land is under obligation to
explain that who fenced the wire surrounding field and
therefore, his custodial interrogation is required, and as
such his this prayer of anticipatory bail be outrightly
rejected. It is submitted that the informant lost her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35215 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
4/5
husband aged about 35 years. It is submitted that as per
oral directions of this Court while passing order of “no
coercive on 17.11.2025”, the Court directed that the
parties must settle the issues amicably but instead of
settlement qua compensation accused person refused to
join any settlement and started saying that he will face
the trial.
8. Taking note of aforesaid submission, it is
submitted by Mrs. Vaishanvi Singh, that if parties failed to
arrive on any amicable compensation, for this tortious
act, informant is free to file a suit for appropriate
compensation against petitioner and may approach
concerned DLSA/ district authority under victim
compensation scheme as available under section 357(A)
Cr.P.C. / 396 of BNSS.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of fact as prima-facie informant is not the eye
witness of the erecting fencing and, merely on the basis
of suspicion as petitioner is the owner of land, in issue,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35215 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
5/5
which was said to be fenced, implicated with crime in
question, accordingly petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the court below
within a period of four weeks, is directed to be released
on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned ACJM 1 st Class, West
Muzaffarpur /concerned Court, where the case is pending
in connection with Kudhani P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of BNSS.
10. Learned DJ, Muzafarpur cum chairman of
DLSA, Muzaffarpur is directed to consider the
compensation petition of informant, if any, in accordance
with law.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…