Judgment : 1. The petitioners apprehend arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 304(A) an 506(ii) IPC. 2. The petitioners are the proprietors of "Saravana Vessel Stores" situated in a 5 storeyed building at Ranganathan Street. Three fourth of "Lucky Plaza", a neighbouring building, is also connected to the main building of Saravana Vessel Stores. 700 employees work in this Mega Mal and lakhs of customers visit every day to purchase consumer goods. .3. Apart from running the vessel business in the building in question, the petitioners and others are engaged in several other business in Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar. This street leads to the Mambalam Railway Station and the width thereof is 30 ft. During day time, the street is busy and filled up with dense population for shopping. On the fateful day i.e., 01.09.2008, in the early hours, a fire broke out from the 5th floor of Saravana Vessel Stores and shortly thereafter, fire engulfed the other floors also. Fortunately, because of the reason that it is early morning, business has not been commenced, however, some of the employees were inside the premises. On noticing the fire, those employees rushed out through the roof and, after receiving information, police and fire personnel reached the scene of occurrence and made a hectic attempt to put off the fire. After the fire was put off, it came to light that two of the employees were charred to death and under such circumstances, the present case has been taken on file by the respondent police. .4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that all safety measures have been adopted while constructing the 5 storeyed building of Saravana Vessel Stores and the fire broke out accidentally, for which, negligence could only be attributed to the petitioners. If at all, the petitioners can be said to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part-A IPC. and the offence under Sec.304 Part-I is not attracted. He states that merely because of the death of two employees, the offence has been modified from 304 Part-A to 304 Part-I IPC. Though hundreds of persons are employed in the shop, persons from neighbouring shops were examined as witnesses. and the offence under Sec.304 Part-I is not attracted. He states that merely because of the death of two employees, the offence has been modified from 304 Part-A to 304 Part-I IPC. Though hundreds of persons are employed in the shop, persons from neighbouring shops were examined as witnesses. Merely because of the reason that a fire broke out and two persons died, the case has been looked at with extraordinary sensation and since Saravana Vessel Stores appears to be a famous Super Market, press people have also blown out of proportion the gravity of the offence; otherwise, it would have been treated as an ordinary accident. By submitting that the petitioners are the aged persons and income tax assesses, learned Senior Counsel states that the building in question has been constructed only after obtaining due approval from the CMDA and licence & permission from the authorities concerned including the Corporation of Chennai to run the store; and pleads that the relief sought for may be granted. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that Saravana Vessel Stores is situated in a narrow street called Ranganathan Street, well known for ceaseless business activities always busy with human and vehicular movements and since Saravana Vessel Stores offer attractive rebates, discount etc., lakhs of customers visit the shop every day. He also submits that, with great difficulty, the police and the fire brigade extinguished the fire and, during the course of investigation, the Supervisor and Manager of the Store were arrested and it came to light that the following are the reasons for the fire accident: i) Emergency gate was not provided in the building ii) There are no safety measures such as fire fighting materials for protection of the building from fire are not provided iii) There is no direct entrance for the "Lucky Plaza" from Ranganathan Street iv) The watchmen were permitted to stay in that building during night hours by the owners of the shop, even though there is no sufficient protection in that building in order to escape from the fire or other accidents" Referring to such aspects and stating that the case has been altered as one under Sec.304 (I) IPC and investigation is at progress, it is submitted that it is not desirable at this point of time to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. 6. I have perused the materials available on record. 6. I have perused the materials available on record. The scene of occurrence is a Mega Mal called Saravana Vessel Stores. Even as per the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, 700 employees work in the said stores and every day, several lakhs of people visit this shop situated in a narrow street of 30 ft. This Street is mainly used by the general public to reach the Mambalam Railway Station. Though it is stated that all safety measures have been taken by the petitioners, taking note of the reasons assigned for the unfortunate accident/incident, it could be inferred that the authorities failed to inspect the building either at the time of construction or subsequent thereto and it is quite apparent that the authorities concerned including C.M.D.A and Corporation of Chennai have mechanically and without application of mind, granted licence and permission. If the authorities strictly insisted upon compliance of all safety measures and ensured the same on the part of the accused Concern, the accident would have been averted. It is fortunate that the accident took place in the early hours and if such an accident had happened during the day time, when the general public were shopping, undoubtedly, the lives of thousands of people were at stake. No doubt, the present incident is a replica of Kumbakonam school children death case by fire. In such a serious cases, apart from the owners of the building, other accused including Government Officials who are responsible for granting approval for construction of such buildings should also be brought within the circle of investigation by taking them as accused in the case. It is pathetic to note that the investigation has not been proceeded in a right manner by probing into the involvement of the Government Officials concerned. I am hopeful that at least during the course of investigation, the persons concerned, in particular, CMDA and Corporation authorities and other Government Officials in-charge who have given permits/licence and those officials, who are in-charge of periodical inspection, are taken as accused in this case. The arrested accused are none else than the Manager and the Supervisor of the Saravana Vessel Stores. The arrested accused are none else than the Manager and the Supervisor of the Saravana Vessel Stores. When the employees of the Stores are in judicial custody, I am of the view that the main accused, who are the petitioners herein and also the owners of the building, cannot be granted the relief prayed for especially on the third day of the occurrence. As it has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the investigation is at the preliminary stage and the petitioners are absconding, I am of the considered view it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence the petition is dismissed.