ORDER : 1. This application is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I­246 of 2019 registered with Sarthana Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 308 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda assisted by learned advocate Mr. Kishan H. Daiya for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing for the victims. 3. The aforesaid FIR is filed by one Mr. Ayubbhai Adambhai Vadgama, Police Sub­Inspector, Sarthana Police Station, Surat. It is stated that when the complainant was on duty, he got the information from his superior officer to reach at the Shopping Center ­ Takshasila Arcade, near Sarthana Jakatnaka where the fire took place. Complainant, therefore, reached at the place of incident with his police personnel and he noticed that one firefighter was also present at the place of incident. It is further stated that whole building of Takshasila Arcade caught into fire and the boys and girls who were on the fourth floor of the said building started screaming and after that some of the boys and girls started jumping from the building. At that time, complainant and other police personnel tried to stop them by shouting. It is further stated that the crowd gathered at the place of incident tried to save the boys and girls who jumped from the building. On the basis of the information given by the Surat City Police Control­room, various firefighter vehicles reached at the place of incident. Thereafter, they tried to control the situation. It is further stated that after the control of fire by the firefighters, the complainant inquired at the place of incident. During the inquiry, it was revealed that illegal structure has been carried out by accused Harsulbhai Vakariya and Jignesh Savjibhai Pagdal. The said premises was given to one Mr. Bhargav Butani on rent. It is alleged that Bhargav Butani was running the classes. Because of the illegal structure on fourth floor of terrace of the building and since no fire safety equipments were installed and in absence of fire exit, the incident has taken place. 4. Learned advocate Mr. The said premises was given to one Mr. Bhargav Butani on rent. It is alleged that Bhargav Butani was running the classes. Because of the illegal structure on fourth floor of terrace of the building and since no fire safety equipments were installed and in absence of fire exit, the incident has taken place. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant was arrested on 30.06.2019 in connection with the aforesaid FIR and he is in jail since last more than 5 months. After investigation, investigating officer has filed the charge­sheet and therefore the applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.4712 of 2019 before the Sessions Court, Surat. However, the said application came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court by common order dated 19.09.2019 and therefore the applicant has filed the present application. It is submitted that now the investigation is over and charge­ sheet is filed and therefore this Court may consider the case of the applicant. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that as per the allegation levelled in the papers of charge­sheet against the applicant, he was present in the meeting held by Deputy Municipal Commissioner on 31.01.2019 due to one incident which took place at Aagam Shopping Center wherein two persons died. The applicant as well as other Chief Fire Officer, Divisional Fire Officers and Fire Officers were present and at that time instruction was given to the Divisional Fire Officers to check the area as well as the buildings and to report whether proper fire safety equipments are installed or not. 6. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant was not holding charge of the area where the incident in question has occurred. After the retirement of Divisional Fire Officer viz. Mr. V.D.Vadhgal, the charge was given to the applicant. It is the specific case of the applicant that he has visited various premises and also sealed more than 550 premises in the very area where the incident in question has occurred. It is, therefore, submitted that applicant was nowhere connected with the incident in question. 7. It is also submitted that applicant has no role to play in the alleged incident. However, just to make a show that the police officers have worked actively and arrested all the accused, number of persons are implicated in the incident in question. 8. It is, therefore, submitted that applicant was nowhere connected with the incident in question. 7. It is also submitted that applicant has no role to play in the alleged incident. However, just to make a show that the police officers have worked actively and arrested all the accused, number of persons are implicated in the incident in question. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda would further contend that applicant has worked in Reliance Company in Surat as General Manager Fire Officer for about 10 years and thereafter in 2001 he is appointed as Deputy Chief Fire Officer in Surat Municipal Corporation and he has performed his duty diligently. In past, no FIR was registered against the applicant nor even any departmental inquiry was initiated against him. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Bharda would further submit that the alleged incident took place on 24.05.2019 and the applicant was not on duty at the time of incident and he was on leave during the period between 19.05.2019 to 26.05.2019. Though the applicant was on leave at the time of incident, when he came to know about the said incident, he immediately came back to Surat from Orissa. 10. It is also submitted that the alleged incident took place because of short circuit which has taken place at second floor in the outdoor unit of AC. When the officers of the fire department came to know about the said incident immediately they reached to the place of incident. It is, therefore, submitted that when the officers of the fire department have reached at the place of incident, immediately it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the officers of the fire department including the present applicant. 11. Learned advocate thereafter contended that even as per the papers of the charge­sheet, allegation of negligence is levelled against the applicant and therefore the said act is punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). Maximum punishment prescribed for the said offence is 2 years. Thus, looking to the role attributed to the applicant, applicant be enlarged on bail. 12. It is further submitted that applicant will not tamper with any evidence as the charge­sheet is filed and the material is already collected by the investigating officer. Maximum punishment prescribed for the said offence is 2 years. Thus, looking to the role attributed to the applicant, applicant be enlarged on bail. 12. It is further submitted that applicant will not tamper with any evidence as the charge­sheet is filed and the material is already collected by the investigating officer. Applicant would be available at the time of trial and looking to the fact that there are number of witnesses which the prosecution will examine at the time of trial, trial of the FIR in question would not be over in near future and therefore this Court may enlarge the applicant on bail. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin opposed this application and contended that Assistant Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation as well as head of Fire Department of Surat Municipal Corporation called the meeting on 31.01.2019 after the incident which had taken place at Aagam Arcade where two persons died in the incident of fire. The instruction was given to the fire officers to inspect every commercial complexes, shopping center, malls, high­rise buildings and if any lapse is found in the fire security then notice be served to the respective building. It is submitted that applicant has not followed the said instructions and because of the lethargic approach of the applicant, the incident in question has occurred. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred the statements of Basantkumar Parik, In­charge Chief Fire Officer, Deepakkumar Makija, Divisional Fire Officer, Harish Ambalal Gadhvi, Fire Officer, Manjuji Vitthalbhai, retired Divisional Fire Officer and Prakash Patel, Fire Officer. After referring to the relevant portion of the said statements, it is submitted that the other fire officers have followed the directions given in the meeting which was held on 31.01.2019. However, so far as the applicant is concerned, he has not visited the premises in which the incident has occurred. Thus, because of the lethargic approach of the applicant, 22 young boys and girls lost their lives. It is, therefore, urged that this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. 14. Learned advocate Mr. However, so far as the applicant is concerned, he has not visited the premises in which the incident has occurred. Thus, because of the lethargic approach of the applicant, 22 young boys and girls lost their lives. It is, therefore, urged that this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. 14. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli appearing for the victims also opposed this application and contended that applicant has not checked the premises where the incident has taken place though direction was given to all the fire officers in the meeting which was held on 31.01.2019 and therefore looking to the conduct of the applicant and role attributed to him, this Court may not exercise discretion in his favour. 15. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record including the papers of the charge­sheet, it is revealed that the unfortunate incident has taken place at Takshasila Arcade on 24.05.2019. In the said incident, 22 young boys and girls died and more than 18 persons received injuries. Thus, this Court is conscious about the seriousness of the fateful incident which has taken place at Takshasila Arcade. However, if the allegation levelled against the applicant is carefully examined, from the charge­sheet papers, it is revealed that applicant was though present in the meeting held on 31.01.2019, he was not holding the charge of Divisional Fire Officer of the area in which the incident has taken place. However, after retirement of Divisional Fire Officer Mr. V.D.Vadhgal, charge was given to the applicant on 28.02.2019. It is the specific case of the applicant from the material placed on record that he has visited various premises in the area and also sealed more than 550 premises in the same area where the incident has taken place. It has also come on record from the statement of one Mayurbhai Gajera that fire extinguisher was available and the said witness has tried to extinguish the fire before the fire officers reached at the place of incident. 16. From the submissions canvassed by learned advocate appearing for the applicant it is also revealed that applicant has worked for a period of 10 years as General Manager Fire Officer in one private company. 16. From the submissions canvassed by learned advocate appearing for the applicant it is also revealed that applicant has worked for a period of 10 years as General Manager Fire Officer in one private company. Thereafter, in 2001 he is appointed as Deputy Chief Fire Officer in Surat Municipal Corporation and during his entire career so far no departmental inquiry was held against him nor any other FIR is registered against him. 17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that if the paper of the charge­sheet is carefully examined, it is the specific case of the investigating officer that applicant has remained negligent while performing his duty by not properly checking/visiting the building in which the unfortunate incident has occurred. Thus, case of the prosecution itself is that applicant has remained negligent. 18. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the role attributed to the applicant in the papers of the charge­sheet, and more particularly, it is alleged that applicant has remained negligent in performance of his duty, I am inclined to consider his case for enlarging him on regular bail. 19. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 20. Hence, the present application is allowed. 19. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 20. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I­246 of 2019 registered with Sarthana Police Station, Surat on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a period of twelve months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; [f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; 21. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 22. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 23. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.