Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 346 (CHH)

VIKAS BHARTI v. STATE OF C. G.

2011-11-02

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.377/2009, registered at Police Station-Balco, Korba for alleged commission of offence under Section 304, 324, 326, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution is that due to rash and negligent act in the construction of chimney, chimney collapsed and in the matter of construction of chimney, the applicant and other accused persons were involved, resulting in death of large number of labourers. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated for alleged commission of offence, because the applicant was not in the service and employment of M/s Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. (For short "GDCL"), after having submitted his resignation on 12-06-2009 whereas the chimney is said to have collapsed on 23-09-2009. In support of his submission, he relied upon a letter (Annexure A-2), by which, resignation was submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there may be several reasons for collapse of chimney and straightway it cannot be alleged that it was the applicant, who was responsible for such an accident resulting in death of labourers. Relying upon a decision in the case of Geetha Ramesh & Ors. Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Udagamandalam, 2010 Cr.L.J. 762, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations, which have been leveled against the applicant, as contained in the charge sheet filed in the Court, even if accepted, no case of commission of offence under Section 304-A of the IPC is made out. Lastly, it is submitted that as similarly situated accused persons namely Anirudh and Wasam Shetty Venkat have been granted regular bait by this Court, the applicant being a similarly situated, is also entitled for grant of bail in these exceptional circumstances. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the incident relating to collapse of chimney has resulted in hazardous accident, wherein large number of labourers died. He submits that various expert reports, which have been obtained by the Investigating Agency and placed on the record in the charge sheet, would show that in the matter of construction of chimney, the Engineers of the aforesaid c0mpany were found criminally negligent. He submits that various expert reports, which have been obtained by the Investigating Agency and placed on the record in the charge sheet, would show that in the matter of construction of chimney, the Engineers of the aforesaid c0mpany were found criminally negligent. He further submits that the material, which has been collected by the prosecution shows that the applicant was continuing in the employment of GDCL and there is no document to show that GDCL has accepted his resignation and the submission that the applicant has resigned from employment, is highly doubtful and not supported from the records of GDCL, which were seized by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. Learned State counsel lastly submitted that anticipatory bail applications of other similarly situated accused persons Anirudh and Wasam Shetty Venkat had been rejected by this Court, though, later on, they have been granted regular bail. 6. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that there is no document relating to acceptance of applicant's resignation from service and also taking into consideration that the applicant is, in any case, even according to the prosecution, he was involved in the construction of chimney as a Engineer ever since 2008 and considering the gravity of offence and that anticipatory bail applications of other similarly situated accused persons Anirudh and Wasam Shetty Venkat had been rejected by this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 7. The application (M.Cr.C.(A)No.799 of 2011) is therefore rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant intends to move application for grant of regular bail before the Court below and prayed that the Court below may be directed to consider and decide the application for grant of regular bail on the same day. 9. Considering the submission made above, it is directed that in case, any such application for grant of regular bail is moved; the same shall be considered and decided by taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the applicant regarding he being a similarly situated to other accused persons Anirudh and Wasam Shetty Venkat, who have been granted regular bail. Application Dismissed.