Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 782 (AP)

K. Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-06-27

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA

body2025
ORDER : A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. The petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.3 in Crime No.120 of 2025 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, which was registered with the allegations of committing the offences under Sections 194 of BNSS , subsequently altered and added with Section 125(b), 105 r/w 3(5) of BNS. 2. Present application is filed with a prayer for directing the concerned, to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest, in respect of crime mentioned, in the form of granting pre-arrest bail, in terms of Section 482 of BNSS . 3. Due to collapse of wall, during Chandanothsavam celebrated at Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, [for short ‘SVLNS Devasthanam’] Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam (07) devotees died and (8) persons injured. Alleging that the petitioner, being contractor, and others involved in the construction process, failed to take proper precautions and negligent case is registered against accused including the petitioner. Claiming that the petitioner is afraid of danger of arrest and he is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail, present application is filed. 4. The respondent-State strongly opposed the petition on various grounds. 5. Heard both sides extensively. 6. Point for determination: Whether the petitioner/A3 is entitled for the relief of pre-arrest bail in respect of Crime No.120 of 2012 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, in terms of Section 482 of BNSS ? If so, on what conditions? Case of the Prosecution: 7. [i] The Executive Officer, of SVLNS Devasthanam presented a report to Police on 12.05.2025, informing collapse of wall on the early hours of 30.04.2025 and death of (07) persons, and injuries to some persons, for taking appropriate action, while informing that preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Commission and the report was submitted to Government while recommending for criminal action against the officials and persons mentioned in the report, including the petitioner herein. [ii] As per the Inspection Report, the Section of retaining wall is insufficient to take care of the loads caused by the soil pressures etc., the depth of foundation provided is not sufficient, back-filling of the retaining wall was done with debris of some concrete material instead of proper soil filling and consolidation. The construction of wall was done without proper plan and design. There was gross negligence on the part of the accused Nos.1 to 3. The construction of wall was done without proper plan and design. There was gross negligence on the part of the accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, all the accused including the petitioner herein are liable for persecution and punishment for the offences under Sections under which the case is registered. Contention of the petitioner:- 8. He is innocent. The case is foisted with untenable allegations. The incident is dated 30.04.2025. Initial registration of the case is under Section 194 BNSS and none are shown as accused. The report is submitted (4) days after the incident. The provisions of Section 105 of BNS does not apply, there is no contract to construct the subject wall between the petitioner and the informant. Due to the acquaintance of continuous rendering of service to the Devasthanam, Supervisors and staff of the petitioner provided material and labour and the construction was done under the supervision of the engineers and staff of the Devasthanam. The incident took place within (3) days of the construction of the wall. For any new construction, curing period is 14 days and to attain full strength 28 days are required as per the IS Code. Laying of heavy pendals on newly constructed wall and allowing of such / and pilgrims to pass near the newly constructed wall is the lapse of the concerned in management of the Temple. There was Heavy rain and wind pressure on the date of incident, the pressure on heavy pendals on the newly constructed wall might have contributed for the collapse of the wall. The petitioner has no knowledge of providing any material or labour by to his supervisors. Arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor:- 9. [i] Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there is gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in construction process. Any amount of knowledge as to consequences of lapses in construction to the petitioner can be presumed. The reasons for the collapse as per the enquiry report are that, [ii] Bifurcating steps were completed on 16.04.2025 without constructing the retaining walls on either side, the E.E. APTDC informed that for Chandanothsavam, temple authorities planned to utilize the steps portion for que-lines and requested for construction of temporary walls to prevent collapse of loose soil on the steps, accordingly, a fly ash brick retaining wall was constructed along with newly constructed steps to retain the earth. [iii] Construction of retaining wall taken up on 16 th April and completed by 21 st April. The wall was constructed on existing grounds without foundation, reinforcement and columns. [iv] The temporary wall is a natural gradient for flow of rain water from uphill. [v] The engineers of the endowment department and APTDE failed to factor this aspect while allowing the contractor to build the temporary wall. [vi] As to who is responsible for faulty construction, the Committee of officials found that around (8) persons including the petitioners herein are responsible. [vii] Investigation is pending and custodial interrogation of the petitioner, may be necessary for ascertaining certain information, hence, release of petitioner is likely to interfere with the investigation process, [viii] The petitioner will tamper the evidence. 10. Further, learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the following authorities:- 1. State represented by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma , [ 1997(7) SCC 187 ] vide paras 6 to 8, which was a case pertaining to the offence under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act under investigation by CBI, as to acquiring disproportionate assets etc. 2. Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and Anr., 2022 (17) SCC 391 vide para 13, wherein it is held that even if custodial interrogation is not required, that cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and gravity of the offence shall be considered. 3. P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement , [ 2019 (9) SCC 24 ] vide para 72 and 83, which reads as follows:- “72 . We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights—safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ....... 83. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights—safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ....... 83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to 2022 (17) SCC pg 391 the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 11. (i) There is no proof as to entrustment of work to the petitioner. (ii) The completion of the wall and the incident are within (4) days of the construction. (iii) Duty of care while using the wall and allowing pilgrims near the wall is more on the officials of the temple but not on the petitioner. (iv) There is neither intention, nor any knowledge to the petitioner about the likelihood of the mishap. (v) The petitioner is aged ‘61’ years. (vi) Petitioner is executing contracts for the SVLNS Devasthanam for several years and for several institutions, including Government, having permanent abode and he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Findings and conclusions:- 12. The observations in the authorities No.1 in Anil Sharm’s case [cited Supra] in respect of Prevention of Corruption Act, where interrogation etc. are necessary, hence, observations made therein found not applicable to the present case. Here, the facts are clear and the material if any as to entrustment of the work to the petitioner, must be with the informant/SVLNS Devasthanam or concerned authorities. 13. The authorities No.2 in Sumitha Pradeep’s case [cited 2 supra], observations are made on the point of considering the gravity of the offence. Here, the facts are clear and the material if any as to entrustment of the work to the petitioner, must be with the informant/SVLNS Devasthanam or concerned authorities. 13. The authorities No.2 in Sumitha Pradeep’s case [cited 2 supra], observations are made on the point of considering the gravity of the offence. The observations in Chidamabaram’s case are pertaining to balancing interest of the State as well as the accused, while considering the constitutional protection, in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution and also taking note of hamper to the investigation. 14. Even as per the prosecution, more than 30 witnesses are examined. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that several witnesses are yet to be examined and the information is to be elicited from the petitioner, in addition to the entrustment of work to the petitioner. The material relating to the entrustment of the work to the petitioner by way of contract etc., must be with the informant as rightly argued. 15. The petitioner submitted that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. It is evident that he has participated, during the inspection done, which is mentioned in the preliminary enquiry report. 16. Much of the argument has been advanced as to whether the conduct of the accused will amount to culpable homicide? in view of the death of (7) persons and injuries to some. 17. At this stage of prima facie, the extent of culpability for the offence under which the petitioner/accused is liable, cannot be deeply addressed. The availability of the accused for investigation, and due process of law, is required to be taken care to balancing interest of the prosecution and the accused as observed in Chidamabaram’s case [cited supra]. 18. There are no clear answers as to contract specifically entrusting the work to the petitioner, etc., but it is simply stated that supervisors of the petitioner engaged in the process of construction and that the petitioner accused has knowledged as to the construction activity. However, petitioner denied knowledge stating that the use of wall should not have been resorted to within the time contemplated for its stability and without certification by the concerned, as to fitness for use, and the last opportunity to prevent the mishap is with the Devasthanam and other officials than the petitioner. However, petitioner denied knowledge stating that the use of wall should not have been resorted to within the time contemplated for its stability and without certification by the concerned, as to fitness for use, and the last opportunity to prevent the mishap is with the Devasthanam and other officials than the petitioner. Whether the liability of the accused is tortuous or criminal or for ‘both’ may come out in due course. The petitioner is said to be a senior citizen, aged more than ‘60’ years and submitted that he is suffering from the ailments. 19. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and depth of the allegations and the availability of the accused for all the process of law during investigation and trial etc., and absence of clear necessity for custodial interrogation, the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail found convincing. However, imposing conditions found necessary. 20. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner/A3 is directed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer within fifteen (15) days and on such appearance/surrender or arrest, he is entitled for release on bail, in respect of Crime No.120 of 2025 on the file of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, which was registered with the allegation of committing offences under Sections 105 , 125(b), r/w 3(5) of BNS, on the condition of the petitioner/Accused executing bail bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O., Gopalapatnam Police Station. ii) The petitioner/A3 and his sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time. iii) For the purpose of expediting the investigation process, the Petitioner/Accused is directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O., after release on bail on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m for a period of eight (08) weeks or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation agency, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and he shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc. iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation agency, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and he shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc. v) Petitioner shall furnish a copy of his passport to the concerned police and they are at liberty to inform the passport authority about the pendency of the case against the petitioner, if necessary, for taking appropriate action in terms of Passport Act, 1967 against the petitioner. vi) The petitioner/A3 shall not leave India, without permission of the concerned Court.