Allowed

Shashikant Nivruti Akhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Jan 2017ABA/146/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court allowed bail with conditions requiring cooperation with investigation and taking future precautions to prevent similar accidents. The court noted a prima facie issue of non-coordination between operators. (Paragraphs 1-7)

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on conditions: PR bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, cooperation with IO, no tampering, and provision of safety kits to labourers.

Shashikant Nivruti Akhade Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.146.2017_1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2017

¶5

Shri Shashikant Nivruti Akhade

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶9

Mr.Hrishikesh Mundargi for the Applicant Ms.N.S. Jain, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.A.A. Rathod, PSI, Yavat Police Station, present,

¶10

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶11

DATED: JANUARY 30, 2017

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

This application is made for pre-arrest bail under section 438

¶14

of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant/accused is facing charges under section 304 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.880 of 2016 registered at Yavat Police Station, Pune.

¶15

One Ravi Temgire and his colleague Ganesh Pandit were given work of changing generator on DP pole near Rahur village on 29.6.2016. The deceased Pradip and his colleague Ganesh Pandit

¶16

were hired as labourers by the present applicant/accused, who is a

¶17

contractor and was given the contract of this work. For the purpose

¶18

1 / 6

¶19

aba.146.2017_1

¶20

of this work, it was necessary to stop electric supply of that wire and accordingly, the electric supply to concerned live wires was disconnected on 29.6.2016 between 16.30 hours to 20.25 hours. Thereafter, the deceased climbed on the pole and when he was about to change the generator, he sustained shock and got electrocuted and died on the spot at 17.15 hours. This information was thereafter given to his relatives. The wife of Pradeep, namely, Chaitali, enquired about the incident and she found that shockproof kit was not supplied to the deceased and, therefore, he died due to the shock. Also, she did not give the complaint immediately because enquiry was conducted in the said matter and thereafter on 28.12.2016, she approached the police and gave this complaint.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is a contractor. He was given the contract by the Supervisor of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL). A certificate of disconnection of supply to the live lines was also given in writing during the period from 16.32 hours to 20.25 hours on 29.6.2016. After verifying the position, the applicant/accused asked his

¶22

2 / 6

¶23

aba.146.2017_1

¶24

labourers to attend the work. The learned Counsel further relied on a photocopy of a page wherein the name of Pradeep and his colleague Ganesh Temgire and other two workers are mentioned and it showed that the shock-proof kit was provided to the deceased on 1.6.2016 and to Ganesh Pandit on 29.5.2016. He further relied on the report of the enquiry wherein it was mentioned that the accident took place due to non-coordination between the workers and the electric operator at the sub-station. He further submitted that the supervisor of the Department was also present at the relevant time. He submitted that the applicant/accused had taken due precaution to avoid the accident and, therefore, he is to

¶25

be given protection and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation.

¶26

The learned Prosecutor has opposed the application and she submitted that the applicant/accused was negligent. He did not supply the shock-proof kit which is required for the labourers who are doing the electric work.

¶27

This is a second date, however, on the first date, the Investigating Officer was present and the learned Prosecutor was directed to take instructions and, therefore, interim bail was not

¶28

3 / 6

¶29

aba.146.2017_1

¶30

granted. The Investigating Officer is present and the learned Prosecutor is well instructed and hence, I decide this application finally.

¶31

Perused the papers; the declaration issued to one Anup Sakharkar., who is a supervisor wherein it is specifically mentioned that the live wire was kept dead on 29.6.2016 between 16.30 hours to 20.25 hours to carry out the electric work. Thus, the electric supply was to be stopped during 16.30 hours to 20.25 hours. The deceased sustained electric shock at 17.15 hours. Therefore, it appears that suddenly the electric supply started or it was not stopped at all as per the certificate. I also rely on a report / comment given by the electric supervisor Mr.Patel, Deputy Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) dated 21.10.2016 wherein it is mentioned the said wire was 11 thousand KV and the said line was live between 17.00 hours and 17.23 hours and though in the logsheet, it was specifically mentioned that the electric current is stopped between 16.30 hours to 20.25 hours. Thus, prima facie , it appears that the incident took place due to non-coordination between the operators working in the MSEDCL and the workers. The papers which are

¶32

4 / 6

¶33

aba.146.2017_1

¶34

produced before me, prima facie, show that the shock-proof kit was supplied to the deceased.

¶35

In the circumstances, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed on the following terms:

¶36

a) In the event of arrest, the applicant-accused shall be released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount;

¶37

b) The applicant-accused shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and attend the concerned police station on two Thursdays i.e., 2^nd February, 2017 and 9^th February, 2017 from 11am to 1pm.

¶38

c) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence or pressurise the complainant;

¶39

d) The applicant/accused shall take precaution to provide kits to all the labourers and shall take care that no such incident will take place in future.

¶40

5 / 6

¶41

aba.146.2017_1

¶42

e) In the event of breach of any of the above conditions and if any such incident takes place at the hands of the applicant/accused, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail.

¶43

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of on the above terms.

¶44

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶45

6 / 6

Shashikant Nivruti Akhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Nivruti Akhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Bapu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Vishwanath Jamdade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Indrajeet Aglave Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay @ Dilip Sudhakar Phalke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhananjay Dagadu Devkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manoj Madhukar Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra