Case
Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 28250 of 2026
Saurabh Srivastava, J.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Decision dated: September 2, 2026
Facts of the Case
The applicant was the owner/landlord of premises in Kanpur Nagar where the deceased, a young student preparing for the IIT examination, had been residing as a tenant for about eight months.
The deceased was found dead inside the bathroom. A gas geyser was installed in the bathroom, which allegedly had inadequate ventilation. The FIR alleged that Carbon Monoxide emitted from the geyser may have been inhaled by the deceased, resulting in his death.
After investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet against the applicant under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Magistrate thereafter took cognizance and passed the summoning order.
Read Tiz Also: Supreme Court on Quo Warranto and Forged PhD Degree
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant contended that there was no specific act of rashness or gross negligence attributable to him. Mere ownership of the premises or installation of a gas geyser was insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 106 BNS.
It was argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the absence of credible material showing the applicant’s specific participation or negligent act, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
State’s Arguments
The State opposed the application, relying upon the post-mortem doctor’s opinion that the death occurred due to emission of Carbon Monoxide. It was argued that the applicant’s contentions involved disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence.
Court’s Findings
The High Court held that mere occurrence of death in premises owned by the accused is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability under Section 106 BNS.
There must be prima facie material demonstrating a rash or negligent act attributable to the accused having a direct and proximate nexus with the death.
The Court noted that there was no material showing:
- that the applicant installed the geyser in violation of prescribed safety standards;
- that the applicant knew the geyser was defective;
- that any previous complaint regarding leakage or malfunction had been made to him; or
- that, despite being informed of a defect or danger, he deliberately failed to take corrective measures.
The deceased had also lived in the premises for approximately eight months, but there was no material showing that any complaint regarding the geyser, bathroom ventilation, or hazardous conditions had been communicated to the applicant.
Legal Principle
The Court emphasized that mere ownership of premises cannot create vicarious criminal liability for an accidental death. Criminal liability requires a legally attributable negligent act or omission on the part of the owner.
Since the essential link between the alleged hazardous condition and a specific rash or negligent act of the applicant was absent, the ingredients of Section 106 BNS were not prima facie established.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application and quashed:
- the chargesheet dated 07.09.2025;
- the cognizance/summoning order dated 15.11.2025; and
- the entire criminal proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 06 of 2025 under Section 106 BNS, Police Station Kakadev, Kanpur Nagar.
Ratio Decidendi
A landlord cannot be held criminally liable for an accidental death merely because the death occurred in his premises or because a gas geyser was installed there. To attract criminal liability under Section 106 BNS, the prosecution must prima facie establish a specific rash or negligent act or omission by the accused that has a direct and proximate nexus with the death.
