#Section 105 BNS

The court granted bail to the accused in a triple-fatality drunken driving case, ruling that Section 105 BNS (culpable homicide) requires proof of knowledge of likely death from the factual matrix, not merely the fact of intoxication. The distinction between culpable homicide under Section 105 and rash or negligent act under Section 106 BNS is a question for trial, not the bail stage.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a case under Section 105 B.N.S. after finding the prosecution’s case collapsed without medical corroboration - the deceased died of a hemorrhagic stroke, not trauma. This reinforces that in non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the absence of injury evidence can fatally undermine the prima facie case, protecting accused persons from prolonged detention without forensic support.

Rajasthan High Court grants bail under Sections 103(1), 3(5), and 105 of BNS, holding that absence of premeditation in a sudden quarrel and a post-mortem report failing to corroborate the cause of death warrant release. The ruling underscores that prolonged pre-trial detention is unjustified when prosecution evidence is inconclusive.

Bombay High Court quashes FIR against a General Manager under BNS Section 105, holding that criminal liability for workplace deaths cannot be imposed on corporate officers without proof of knowledge or intent regarding contractor negligence. The ruling sets a precedent protecting executives from vicarious liability absent direct culpability.

The Bombay High Court quashed criminal charges against Rebel Foods' General Manager, holding that outsourcing specialized work to a licensed contractor absolves the principal of criminal liability under BNS 2023 unless there is direct control over unsafe practices or knowledge of imminent danger. This sets a critical precedent for gig economy platforms and corporate clients relying on third-party vendors for high-risk operations.