Varadhan vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.03.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 139 of Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304(2) of IPC in Crime No.74 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Ravi is that the accused had illegally electrified the fencing in his field. On 12.03.2023 at about 11.00 p.m., the elder son of the defacto complainant, who got in touch with the illegal electric fencing, was electrocuted and died on the spot. Hence, this case.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false complaint has been given against him. He would further submit that the petitioner is a 63 years old person and he is a Farmer. Due to natural calamities, the E.B. Wire got cut and fell down on the agricultural field of the petitioner and that the son of the defacto complainant who had gone through the field of the petitioner, unknowingly stamped on the wire and got electrocuted whereas, a false case has been given against the petitioner as if, the petitioner had illegally electrified the fencing in his field. He further submitted that without prejudice to his rights and defence before the trial Court, the petitioner taking into consideration the plight of the defacto complainant, has paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as Ex-gratia to the family of the deceased and the major portion of the investigation is also over and that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 13.03.2023. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner had illegally electrified his field due to which, the son of the defacto complainant who touched the same unknowingly, got electrocuted and died at the spot. Therefore, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the family of the deceased as ex-gratia and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.