Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application No. 865/2022
FIR No. 100/2022
PS South Campus
State Vs. Mohd. Raees
25.05.2022
Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State with IO.
Sh. Akash Dhawan, Ld. Counsel for applicant/ accused.
Present is an application moved on behalf of applicant/ accused
Mohd. Raees for grant of bail.
A report has been filed on behalf of DCP, South West and DC, MCD
informing the court that appropriate action has been initiated against the erring
officers. It is further informed that the worthy Joint CP is personally monitoring the
investigation to ensure a thorough probe.
It is submitted that applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in
the present case as he has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he is
languishing in j.c since 30.04.2022. It is submitted that neither section 304 nor
Section 308 IPC is attracted in the instant case. It is submitted that at best an
offence u/s 304A IPC is made out in the instant matter.
It is further submitted that the applicant/ accused is aged about 50
years and he is merely a mason and he is the only bread earner in his family. It is
further submitted that applicant is an innocent man and his further incarceration
shall expose him to criminal elements which is not the purpose of custody. It is
further submitted that applicant/accused has never been convicted in any criminal
case and he is having deep roots in the society. It is thus prayed that
applicant/accused person may be released on bail.
Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is
submitted that as per the eye witness account laborers were working at the
premises bearing no. 173 Satya Niketan and they were hired to carry out the
construction / renovation work wherein the old walls were to be removed and new
pillars were required to be erected. It is submitted that applicant /accused Raees
was engaged as a contractor by the owner of the premises and the
-- 1 of 3 --
applicant/accused was warned by the victims that the proposed construction work
is a dangerous work yet applicant/accused and the owner of the premises directed
them to work as per their directions without adopting any safety measures.
Consequently, the building caved in leaving three laborers injured and two laborers
dead. It is argued that the accused persons connived with each other that the
construction work must be carried out as fast as possible even at the cost of human
lives. It is submitted that the accused persons had knowledge that the building is
dilapidated and weak and it can collapse or fall any time if proper safety measures
are not taken. It is submitted that the applicant/ accused is responsible for the said
mishap. It is submitted that the registered owner of the alleged building and is
absconding from the beginning and till now search have been made twice at his
residence i.e. Sunder Road, Village Paloda, Banswara, Rajasthan but he is avoiding
his arrest. It is further submitted that the coaccused namely Anoop Kumar is yet to
be arrested, even the registered owner also not joined the investigation till now. It
is further submitted that the investigation is at initial stage. It is submitted that if
accused is released on bail there is every likelihood that he may jump the bail.
I have heard rival submission and gone through the record.
In the case at hand, it would be a little premature to conclusively
adjudicate as to if it is a case under section 304A IPC or it attracts section 304 IPC.
In my considered opinion section 304 IPC can be validly invoked wherein requisite
‘knowledge’ can be attributed to accused that act of the accused is likely to cause
death whereas section 304A IPC would be attracted where negligence or rashness
is the cause of death and nothing more. I am fortified in my opinion by the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs.
State of Maharshtra Crl. Appeal NO. 13181320 of 2007 D.O.D. 12.01.2012.
“In a case where negligence or rashness is the cause of death and
nothing more, Section 304A may be attracted but where the rash or negligence act
is preceded with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death, Section 304
PartII IPC may be attracted and if such a rash and negligence act is preceded by
-- 2 of 3 --
real intention on the part of the wrong doer to cause death, offence may be
punishable under Section 302 IPC”
In the case at hand, prosecution has failed to bring to my notice any
overwhelming evidence to the effect that the applicant / accused was well aware
that his act in all likelihood is going to cause death of the victim.
Be that as it may, the case at hand, at best, attracts partII of Section
304 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for a term extendable to 10 years
or with fine or both.
Considering the nature of allegations and period of incarceration,
applicant/ accused Raees is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the
sum of Rs. 20,000/each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
Ld. MM/Duty MM/Link MM.
Application is disposed off accordingly.
Copy of the order be given dasti.
(Dharmender Rana)
Roster Judge
ASJ02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi
25.05.2022
-- 3 of 3 --