Loshan Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 885 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 885 Chatt
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Loshan Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                 1




                                                                  2026:CGHC:13822
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
                                                                               NAFR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                    MCRCA No. 439 of 2026

            Loshan Kumar Sahu S/o Tej Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
            Nawagovn, Post Dungera, Tahsil Arjunda, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ... Applicant(s)
                                              versus
            State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of
            Police Station Arjunda, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ---- Non-applicant(s)



            For Applicant                  :Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
            For Non-applicant/State        :Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer.



                           Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                       Order on Board
            23.03.2026

               1.

This Second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the

applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime

No. 135/2025 registered at Police Station - Arjunda, District-

Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of

BNS and Section 135 and 138 of Electricity Act.

2. The earlier first anticipatory bail application of the applicant, being

MCRCA No. 193/2026, was disposed of by this Court vide order

dated 05.02.2026, with liberty granted to the applicant to file a fresh

anticipatory bail application with correct particulars. It was observed

that due to an inadvertent typographical error, the offences were

wrongly mentioned as Sections 35 and 38 of the Electricity Act,

instead of the correct provisions i.e., Sections 135 and 138 of the

Electricity Act, both in the first bail application as well as in the

certified copy of the bail rejection order passed by the trial Court.

Accordingly, liberty was granted to rectify the said defect and file a

fresh bail application with correct offences along with the proper

certified copy of the trial Court's order.

3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, it is alleged that on

03.10.2025, a written complaint was made by CSPDCL, Sikosa,

on the basis of which an FIR was registered under Section 106(1)

of the BNS. In the said complaint, it is stated that the applicant,

without obtaining a regular electricity connection and without any

authority of law, illegally drew an extension wire from the bore

connection of Nihal Sahu and extended the same to a distance of

about 300 meters, where he was using the said connection for his

bore. It is further alleged that the wire used by the applicant was

damaged and broken at multiple places, due to which one person,

namely Virendra Sahu, came into contact with the said live wire,

suffered electrocution and died. On account of the said incident,

offence under Section 106(1) of BNS has been registered against

the present applicant and during the course of investigation, Section

135 and 138 of Electricity Act has been added.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and

has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is

further submitted that the applicant came to know about the

registration of the FIR only through a newspaper and has not

taken any unauthorized electricity connection from any person. On

the contrary, for the purpose of operating a motor pump for

agricultural work, the applicant had duly applied for an electricity

connection on 12.08.2024 and also executed an affidavit on the

same date. Pursuant to the directions of the officials of the

Electricity Department, the applicant deposited an amount of

Rs.15,000/- on 19.10.2024 and a receipt of Rs.2,033/- was issued

by the department. Thereafter, the employees of the Electricity

Department themselves provided an electricity connection to the

applicant from the electricity pole through a proper service line to

the place where the bore and motor pump are installed in his

agricultural field. It is further submitted that the said electricity

connection was given by the departmental authorities and the

applicant has been using the same strictly as per their directions for

the motor pump and no illegal or unauthorized connection has been

taken by him. It is also contended that on the date of the incident,

monkeys had damaged and disturbed the service wire and the pole

from which the electricity connection was drawn, due to which the

wire got affected and the unfortunate accident occurred, wherein the

deceased Virendra Sahu came into contact with the live wire. It is

thus submitted that the incident was purely accidental in nature and

there was neither any negligence nor any illegal act on the part of

the present applicant and therefore, the applicant deserves to be

granted anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has

opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the

applicant had illegally drawn electricity in a negligent manner, due

to which the deceased Virendra Sahu came into contact with the

live wire and died due to electrocution. Considering the

seriousness of the offence and the negligence on the part of the

applicant, it is prayed that the anticipatory bail application be

rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case diary.

7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties, nature of allegations and the material available on record,

this Court is of the view that the incident appears to be accidental in

nature and prima facie there is no material to show any intentional

or deliberate act on the part of the applicant and it is also taken into

consideration that the applicant had applied for a regular electricity

connection and the same was provided by the Electricity

Department and there is no specific material to establish that the

applicant had taken any unauthorized connection. In such

circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, this

Court deems it appropriate to allow the present anticipatory bail

application.

8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that

in the event of arrest of the applicant- Loshan Kumar Sahu, 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) 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.