K. SAMBASIVA RAO 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. Heard Shri N. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) SHRI Sardessai, learned Counsel, has pointed out that the Applicants are employed with M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., and posted as, Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager and/or employees at the four laning of the National Highway 17 -B, situated at Vasco da Gama. He has further submitted that the said M/s. KMC Construction were awarded a contract to carry out the work of constructing the said road. He has further pointed out that neither the Mormugao Port Road Company Ltd., nor the National Highway Authority of India or any other person could provide to them the plan/drawing showing the location of any pipeline in the vicinity of the work allotted to M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd. He further pointed out that while the work was being carried out by the Applicants they encountered the pipeline belonging to Zuari Oil Tanking Company Pvt. Ltd., and immediately informed the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, the constructing Company to intervene in the matter. He further pointed out that after such information was given, a joint inspection of the site was carried out and no decisions was taken. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants were merely carrying out their work in terms of the allotment to said M/s. KMC Constructions and were not at all involved in any criminal offence as alleged by the Respondent. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants were always available for investigation and as and when they were called, the Applicants presented themselves for such investigation. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the death of some persons, the police have further charged the Applicants and others with offence under Section 304 of I.P.C. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants were not at all aware nor had any knowledge about the existence of such pipeline and, as such, the question of invoking said Sections does not arise at all. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Applicants are innocent and have only carried out their duties as entrusted to them and by no stretch of imagination they are involved in any offence and, in any event, even if the allegations made by the Respondents are accepted, it can be at the most considered as negligence and cannot be considered to be an offence under Section 304 of I.P.C. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the Respondent. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the Judgments reported in, 1999 (Suppl.) Bom. C.R. 228 in the case of Kantiram @ Nilkanth & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and : 2011(1) S.C.C. 694 in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and have also perused the Judgments relied upon by the Applicants. I have also with the assistance of the Public Prosecutor perused the records and the reply filed by the Respondent. Taking note of the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, that it would not be appropriate to ascertain from the material on record whether, prima facie, the allegations of the Respondents are well founded, I will not consider this aspect at this stage. But, however, the Respondents have not made any grievance that the Applicants have not been co -operating with the investigations or that they have not appeared before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. Apart from that, the learned Public Prosecutor has also pointed out that the relevant documents sought by the Investigating Officer have been produced by the Applicants as directed. The Respondents have also not stated that there was any apprehension that the Applicants may abscond or may not be available for interrogations and/or investigation in connection with the FIR registered by the Respondents.