Patna High Court
Shambhu Kumar @ Shambhu PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to Petitioner 1 but denied to Petitioner 2.
Summary
Petitioner Shambhu Kumar (Petitioner 1) and Yogendra Prasad (Petitioner 2) applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 105 of the B.N.S. alleging that the son of an informant was electrocuted by an electric wire around the petitioners' orchard. The petitioners argued that they have clean antecedents and that the wire was attached to a submersible pump, not intended to cause harm, and that Petitioner 1 had no involvement in the incident. The State and the informant contended that the orchard was deliberately wired to prevent entry, that children frequently entered to pluck fruit, and that the wiring was a rash, negligent act, presenting video evidence of wires tied around trees. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail to Petitioner 1 subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., but denied anticipatory bail to Petitioner 2. The investigating officer’s personal appearance was dispensed with.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to the petitioners in a case under Section 105 of the B.N.S.?
- Whether the evidence shows that Petitioner 1 was involved in the alleged negligent wiring of the orchard?
- Whether the circumstances justify denial of anticipatory bail to Petitioner 2?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 105
- Section 482
- electrocution
- negligence
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54744 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2025 Thana- Parasi District- Arwal
======================================================
1. Shambhu Kumar @ Shambhu Prasad S/O Yogendra Prasad Resident of
Vill.- Rampur, P.S.- Parasi, Dist.- Arwal
2. Yogendra Prasad S/O Late Ganauri Prasad Resident of Vill.- Rampur, P.S.-
Parasi, Dist.- Arwal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pathak
Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala- A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Raj Kumar Rajesh- Advocate
Mr. Girish Chandra- Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 16-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The Investigating Officer of the case in compliance
of the order dated 10.03.2026 is present in the Court.
3. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 105 of the B.N.S.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that petitioners had put electric wire around
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54744 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
their orchard and the son of the informant got electrocuted. It is
next submitted that petitioner no.1 is son of petitioner no.2. It is
further submitted that the occurrence took place at village
Rampur Baina whereas petitioner no.1 resides at Arwal and
hardly comes to the village as he earns at Arwal.
5. It is next submitted that informant alleges that his
son got electrocuted in the orchard of the petitioners, but then,
during the course of investigation, it has not come that the
orchard was fenced by wire rather during the course of
investigation, it transpired that there was submersible pump
within the orchard and a wire was coming out of the
submersible pump and it appears that son of the informant
entered the orchard with a view to pluck fruits, but then, came in
contact with the wire and got electrocuted. It is further
submitted that during the course of supervision, the involvement
of petitioner no.1 has not come, but the case against the
petitioner no.2 has been found to be true.
6. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application. The investigating Officer of the Case, who is
present in the Court, does not dispute the submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54744 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
involvement of petitioner no.1 in the case during the course of
investigation has not transpired, but then, submits that petitioner
no.2 resides in the village and the statement of the villagers was
recorded wherein they have stated that children used to enter the
orchard of the petitioners and used to pluck fruits, as such, wire
was put around the trees standing within the orchard. It is also
submitted that he has video footage of the place of occurrence
and from perusal of the same, it would manifest that wires were
found tied around the trees having current. It is thus submitted
that it appears that the trees were wired with a view to ensure
that no one enters the orchard for the purposes of plucking
fruits. It is thus submitted that the same was a rash and negligent
act on the part of the accused persons.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner no.1, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six
weeks, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail on his
furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Parasi P. S. Case
No.50 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54744 of 2025(5) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. The application stands allowed.
9. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, the Court is
not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner no.2.
10. The prayer of the petitioner no.2 for
anticipatory bail stands rejected.
11. The personal appearance of the Investigating
Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…