#Section 106 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 Calcutta High Court set aside the FIR, ruling that Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita demands a direct causal link between the accused’s act and the victim’s death. A contractor’s failure to provide safety equipment alone, without proof that the omission caused the fatality, does not attract criminal liability. The decision narrows the reach of criminal negligence provisions for employers and contractors across India.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that merely naming a director under Section 106 BNS without specific allegations of involvement is inadequate, but when systemic safety failures are documented - such as unguarded high-voltage wiring and unchecked work practices - a prima facie case of negligence arises. This sets a critical precedent for holding corporate leadership accountable not by title, but by demonstrable oversight failures in workplace safety.