Back
Denies Bail to Karan Singh in 12-Year-Old's Electrocution Death by Illegal Electric Fencing
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the act of electrifying a fence without any safety devices was
"
so imminently dangerous"
that the accused could not claim ignorance of the risk.
The has rejected the plea of Karan Singh, arrested in connection with the electrocution death of a 12-year-old child who came into contact with an illegally installed electric fence on the accused's land. The order, passed on by Justice Girish Kathpalia, underscores the court's stance on the grave consequences of reckless actions endangering public safety.
A Deadly Barrier
The case stems from FIR No. 77/2025 registered at PS Jaffarpur Kalan. According to the prosecution, Karan Singh had erected an electric boundary fence around his land using a 10mm thick wire carrying 220-225 volts of electricity, without any regulator, insulator, circuit breaker, or other safety device. A 12-year-old child, playing in the vicinity, came into contact with the fence and was electrocuted. The trial court had already framed charges against Singh under , which deals with .
The Accused's Plea: Protection from Wild Animals
Seeking bail, Singh's counsel argued that no offence under Section 105 BNS was made out as there was no intention to cause death. It was submitted that the accused was neither the owner of the land nor was the electricity meter in his name. The fencing, it was claimed, was done only on two sides in an L-shape to protect the land from wild animals, with a forest area adjoining the property. A satellite image of the area was placed on record to support this claim.
Prosecution's Opposition: A Death Trap
The State, represented by , strongly opposed the bail application. It was pointed out that the fencing was electrified without any sanction from electricity authorities and lacked basic safety features. Crucially, the prosecution highlighted that local children regularly played in the area adjacent to the accused's land, and no warning signboards were installed. The investigation revealed that while the land was nominally owned by Singh's father, it was the accused who was cultivating and managing it.
Court's Analysis: Imminent Danger Could Not Be Ignored
Justice Kathpalia examined the satellite image provided by the accused and found it completely negated the defense's claim. The image showed that the electric fencing did not separate the accused's land from any forest area; instead, it divided two different plots from the property.
The court emphasized the complete lack of safety measures:
"Admittedly, what to say of any circuit breakers or other safety device installed to protect the general public from getting electrocuted with electric fencing of 220-225 volts, even any sign board warning the general public was not installed."
The judge further noted that the fencing was electrified without obtaining any sanction from electricity authorities.
Key Observations
In a pivotal observation, the court stated:
"This act was so imminently dangerous that the accused/applicant cannot claim lack of knowledge that it was likely to cause death of anyone coming in contact with the fence."
The court also rejected the argument regarding land ownership, noting that Singh was the actual cultivator and manager of the land.
The Verdict: Bail Denied
Finding no merit in the bail application, the High Court dismissed it, stating that the circumstances did not warrant releasing the accused at this stage. A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused.
The decision reinforces the principle that individuals cannot escape liability for fatal consequences arising from patently hazardous acts, even if death was not intended. It serves as a stern reminder that the absence of basic safety measures—such as warning signs and circuit breakers—can elevate an act to one of .
