HP High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Accidentally Shooting Another Person, Believing Him To Be A Wild Animal
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to the prime co-accused in the accidental shooting of another person, believing him to be a wild animal, and reiterated that the same amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and not the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS.Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “…they did not intend to cause...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to the prime co-accused in the accidental shooting of another person, believing him to be a wild animal, and reiterated that the same amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and not the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “…they did not intend to cause the death of Som Dutt and cannot be prima facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, but would be liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature.”
The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court seeking regular bail for offences under Sections 103 (murder)and 238 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information) read with Section 3(5) (common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (possession and use of illegal arms).
In January 2025, the deceased, Som Dutt, was reported missing. The police, during the investigation, found that the deceased and the petitioner, along with one other person, Bhutto Ram, had gone to the forest with guns.
Later, the police recovered a partially burnt, dead body without its head from the jungle. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple gunshot wounds to the chest and head.
As per the prosecution, it was the deceased who first went to the jungle, armed with guns, and thereafter the petitioner and Bhutto Ram also went in search of a wild animal.
The petitioner contended that he was innocent and was falsely implicated, as there was no direct evidence linking him to the offences, and the shooting was accidental. He further contended that he had a gun license, so the provisions of the Arms Act did not apply.
The Court noted that the prosecution itself admitted that the co-accused fired under the mistaken belief of hunting a bird. The court stated that this falls under illustration (c) to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 100 of the BNS, when a person shoots at a bird but accidentally kills a man hidden behind bushes.
The Court remarked that in such a case, the act is negligent but not intentional murder. Thus, the Court concluded that there was insufficient material to hold the petitioner for a non-bailable offence.
Case Name: Sandeep Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2280 of 2025
Date of Decision: 06.10.2025
For the Petitioner: M/s Ajay Sipahiya, Pankaj Chauhan & Tarun Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State: Mr Ajit Shamra, Deputy Advocate General.