ROHIT SURI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioners namely Rohit Suri, Rajesh Babbar and Nikhil Soni, who are behind bars since 3/3/2022 and 17/3/2022, respectively, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 0041 of 2022 dtd. 22/2/2022, under Ss. 304, 323 &120-B of IPC and Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, registered at PS Haroli, District Una, H.P. Respondent-State has filed the status report in terms of order dtd. 2/2/2022. SI Manoj Kumar, P.P. Tahliwal, District Una, H.P., has also come present with records. Records perused and returned.

(2.) Perusal of status report/record reveals that on 22/2/2022, police after having received information with regard to fire in crackers factory situate at Bela Bathdi, Tahliwal, Una, visited the factory premises and found that persons having sustained injuries in the fire, have been taken to RH Una. Police, after having reached RH Una, recorded the statement of the complainant namely Farha, daughter of Sangeer Ahmad, under Sec. 154 Cr.PC, wherein she alleged that for the last one month, she works in the crackers factory. She alleged that Gulfan is the owner of the factory, but she does not know about his house/home. She disclosed to the police that 30 to 35 persons work in the factory on contract basis. She told to the police that Rs.100.00 is paid for preparing one box of cracker. She alleged that on 22/2/2022 at 11:00 am, when she alongwith other workers, was working in crackers factory, suddenly masala/powder caught fire, as a consequence of which, there was huge fire in the factory. She alleged that six persons died on the spot, whereas 14 persons were brought to the hospital for treatment. She alleged that owner of the factory neither provided/made any provision/facility for manufacturing the crackers nor there were adequate safety measures and alleged incident happened on account of negligence of the owner of the factory. She alleged that after the alleged incident, owner of the factory fled away from the factory. On the basis of aforesaid statement made by the complainant named herein above, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the bail petitioners namely Rohit Suri, Rajesh Babbar and Nikhil Soni alongwith other persons namely Deepak Rana, Gulfan, Nadeem, Mohammad Gyasudeen and Aarif alias Sharma. After registration of the case as detailed herein above, bail petitioner namely Rohit Soni and Rajesh Babbar had approached this court by way of proceedings filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.PC., but same were subsequently withdrawn, as a consequence of which, they alongwith other bail petitioners named herein above are also behind the bars. Since investigation in the case, save and except receipt of RFSL report, is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, they have approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

(3.) Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge them on bail and as such, prayer made on their behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Kunal Thakur, submits that bail petitioners were not only running the factory of crackers without there being any licence, but had also not made any arrangements/provisions for the safety of the workers working in the factory. He further submits that as per the statement of the complainant, there was no provision to keep the crackers or other explosives material in the safe custody and as such, they are directly liable for death of poor labourers, who had come from other state to earn their livelihood. Mr. Thakur, further submits that since 12 people have lost their lives in the alleged incident, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioners on bail at this stage, who in the event of their being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice, but may also temper with the prosecution evidence.