JUDGMENT 1. - These three petitions arise from the same criminal case, as such they are being disposed of together. 2. An unfortunate incident took place while concrete-cement slab of the roof of 7th floor was being laid of a multi-storyed building known as 'Raisar Plaza', which was under construction. It is alleged that in that process the slab, which was being laid fell down causing injuries to certain labourers, who sustained injuries and five persons, out of the injured persons, died on account of the injuries sustained by them. 3. The prosecution case is that one Manoj Tiwari, who was supervising the construction work on behalf of the contractor, also sustained injuries. Two Engineers, viz., Alok Gupta and Zakir Ali, who were deputed by M/s. Gem Builders, the owners of the said building, were also looking after the construction work. They were arrested on registration of the case and subsequently they were released on bail. In these three petitions, one petition bearing No. 2010/90 has been filed by the owners of the building, the other one bearing No. 2089/90 has been filed by the contractor Man Mohan and third one bearing No. 2074/90 has been filed by Raj Kumar, who is engineer in the employment of the contractor. After filing of these petitions, notices were issued to the Government Advocate and case diary was also summoned and in the meantime the petitioners were granted interim order in their favour that they shall not be arrested by the Investigating Officer till these petitions are disposed of. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has admitted that all these petitioners have appeared before the Investigating agency and they have been interrogated by the concerned authority. On a quarry put to learned Public Prosecutor by this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor could not convince me that it is a case of homicidal death. However, he seriously contended that there was serious lapses and negligence on the part of the petitioners, as such, they should not be granted anticipatory bail. 5. The matter is still in investigation and it is difficult to pin-point the cause of the accident, as to whether it was an architectural defect or the lay-out plan was not properly drawn or it was due to inferior quality of material. At this stage it cannot be said that any of the aforesaid of defects existed or what was the cause of accident. 6. At this stage it cannot be said that any of the aforesaid of defects existed or what was the cause of accident. 6. So far as the prosecution case is concerned, it is that the wooden poles (Ballis) which were used for the shuttering were not sufficiently strong to sustained the weight on account of which this accident took plate. It may be a case of negligence on the part of the concerned persons, who was looking after or supervising the matter but even the entire case is taken on its face value, prima-facie the offence does not travel beyond 304-A IPC against any person including the petitioners. It is also difficult to say as to which of the petitioners can be held prima facie liable under Sec. 304-A IPC as none of them was present at the time of the incident and more of them was supervising the construction at the relevant time. 7. The offence under Sec. 304- IPC is bailable one. 8. It has also been brought to my notice that the contractor had employed engineers as well as supervisors and similarly the owners had also employed their own engineers to look after and supervise the construction work and it has been contended before me that every care was taken by them that the construction work is carried out properly but inspite of all the steps of care taken by them, the unfortunate incident took place. 9. I have been also informed by the learned counsel for the owners that they have deposited sufficient amount before the Commissioner. Compensation in a proceedings for realisation of compensation instituted by the heirs of the deceased and the injured persons and whatever demand has been made by them, the full amount has been deposited by the owners as per their demands. 10. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case including the nature of the offences and the fact that the petitioners have already been interrogated by the Investigating Agency, I think it proper to grant them pre-arrest bail. 11. 10. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case including the nature of the offences and the fact that the petitioners have already been interrogated by the Investigating Agency, I think it proper to grant them pre-arrest bail. 11. Consequently, all these three petitions succeed and the SHO/AO/IO, Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur in FIR No. 317/90 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Kushal Chand Surana, Vimal Chand Surana, Ram Das Sonkhiya, Gopal Das Sonkhiya, Raval Jet Singh, Thakur Ranbir Singh, Man Mohan Agrawal and Raj Kumar Tripathi, they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. ten thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:- (a) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that the petitioners shall not directly, or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or any police officer; and (c) that the petitioners shall not leave India the previous permission of the Court. Petitions allowed. *******