GOURAV DATA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.707 dated 14.10.2019 under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC & ST Act) and Section 9 of Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act (2013) (hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act'), registered at Police Station Model Town Rewari, District Rewari, Haryana.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case as per the allegations contained in the FIR, two persons namely, Ramjas who was Mechanic and other person, namely, Devender who was employee had entered into the septic tank of the hotel which was owned by the petitioner for the purpose of repairing of the submersible motor which was inserted inside the septic tank. Consequently, as per the allegations contained in the FIR, they had died because of toxicity which was due to poisonous gas (Methane) and that they had drowned due to dirty water and ultimately died. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in the present case, as per the provisions of Section 9 of the 2013 Act there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Act because the tank was neither the sewage tank nor it was a sewer and therefore, provisions of the above stated Act do not apply at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that provisions of Section 3 of the SC and ST Act would also not apply because bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that there is not even a single whisper with regard to any violation of any provision of Section 3 of the SC and ST Act. He has further argued that case under Section 304 IPC would not be made in the present case and has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in the present case. He has further submitted that one of the co-accused, namely, Manish Rawat who was the manager of the hotel has been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure P-2).

(3.) Learned State counsel has put in appearance and has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.