DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above applications are taken up together as both the learned Counsel have pointed out that the facts in all of them are similar. The Applicants have filed the above applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that on the basis of a complaint lodged by Filomeno L. Costa, PSI, attached to the Vasco Police Station, a FIR is lodged under Crime no. 136/2011 and 137/2011 for offences under Section 336, 227, 338 and 285, read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Subsequent to the death of some persons, the police had added Section 304 of the I.P.C. It is further the case of the applicants that they are not involved in any crime reported by the police and that they are innocent. The offence is sought to be registered on account of the incident of the leakage of naphta that took place on 19.08.2011 at Vaso. It is further their case that the Zuari Oil Tanking Limited, operates a pipeline that is meant for transportation of Naphta which runs from Mormugoa Port to the tanks owned by the said Company which is located at Sancoale. It is further their case that the said Company has acquired right of way over the said area through which the said pipeline is located and that the Company had engaged securities for inspecting the said pipeline. It is further their contention that the National Highway Authority engaged a contractor for the purpose of widening of the road and that the contractor without obtaining any prior permission, carried out the excavation work in the area which damaged the pipeline. The security personnel noticed that on account of such excavation, a portion of the pipeline was exposed and the officials inspected the pipeline and found no damage to such pipeline with the exception that the anti -corrosive coating applied on the pipeline was peeled off. It is further their contention that the Company received Naphta in August, 2011, and that at about 20.15 hours, there was a fire at Ram Mandir, Gandhinagar, Vasco, on 19.08.2011. When they inspected the pipeline, they found that the same was punctured and the same was covered with earth, It is further their case that the Applicants appeared before the Respondents on 23.08.2011, 24.08.2011 and 28.08.2011 and have been interrogated. It is further their case that there was no negligence on the part of the Company or the Applicants. They further contended that they are innocent and that they are willing and ready to produce any documents and co -operate with the investigations. It is further their contention that the applications for anticipatory bail were filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, which came to be dismissed by Order dated 05.09.2011. Accordingly, apprehending their arrest, the Applicants have preferred the above applications praying, inter alia, for a direction that in the event of the arrest of the Applicants in connection with the said crime, they should be released on bail upon such terms and conditions as this Court may deem appropriate.

(2.) THE Respondents have filed their reply and pointed out that the offences have been registered under Section 336, 337, 338, 427, 485 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. on 22.08.2011. It is further their case that in the incident, so far four persons including a minor and a lady have lost their lives and four persons including three minor boys are fighting for their lives and as such Section 304 IPC was added. It is further the apprehension of the Respondents that during the process of undertaking the construction work on National Highway 17 -B, from Varunapuri to Gandhinagar, the National Highway Authority as well as the KMC constructions have acted in a most negligent manner without taking proper care and caution and damaged the Naphta pipeline belonging to the ZIOL. It is further their contention that though the pipeline is stated to have been damaged on 06.08.2011, the officials of ZIOL had ample time to take corrective measures and to repair the damaged pipeline. It is further their case that as the Applicants are Chief Executive Officers of ZIOL and being aware of the damage, did not take safety measures to inspect the said pipeline and did not conduct any test to confirm the safety position of the pipeline. Accordingly, the Respondents submitted that the applications deserve to the rejected.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents has pointed out that there is no case made out by the Applicants for grant of any anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the Applicants have committed grave offence which have resulted in death of some persons and such Applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is enough material on record to substantiate that the Applicants have committed offences including offences under Section 304 of I.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that this Court should not go into the aspects as to whether there is any material on record to substantiate the contentions of the Respondents that the Applicants have also committed offences under Section 304 of the I.P.C. as any observations of this Court may hamper the investigations by the Respondents. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that there is no case for any anticipatory bail in favour of the Applicants.