Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Rampiyare @ Rampyare Gautam v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Feb 2023BA/41/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 288, 304, and 34 of the IPC regarding a death arising from construction negligence, the court granted bail allowing the applicant to furnish a P.R. bond or cash bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 15,000 with one or more sureties in like amount., or cash bail for 4 weeks.

Rakesh Kumar Rampiyare @ Rampyare Gautam Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Urmila Ingale

¶2

ba 41.23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed URMILA by URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2023.02.24 10:55:51 +0530

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2023

¶6

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Rampiyare @ Rampyare Gautam ..Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶7

Mr. Abhishek R. Mishra, for the Applicant. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the State. PSI- Mr. P.M. Rasam, Malad Police Station present.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned

¶12

APP.

¶13

2. This is an application for bail in respect of C.R.No. 671 of 2022 dated 19/05/2022 registered with Malad Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 288, 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

3. The complainant is one Nitin Narsibhai Wariya doing his business of imitation material at shop no. 15, Bhuralala Jewel Paradise building, Kishan Road, near Jakeriya Road,

¶15

1/5

¶16

Urmila Ingale

¶17

ba 41.23.doc

¶18

Malad (West), Mumbai. Rajkumar Soni was working as a staff member.

¶19

4. On 19/5/2022, while Rajkumar was on duty, he left the shop for attending nature’s call. There was some construction activities carried out on the top floor. A portion of construction caved in. Despite a net affixed surrounding the portion where the activity was carried on, it was not sufficient to protect the material sliding down and in this incident, Rajkumar Soni sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. This resulted in invoking Section 288 read with Section 304.

¶20

5. The specific case of the applicant is, that Karmvir Gangasingh Rajpurohit is a Developer by profession and operates through his Company, named and styled as Karmvir Intelligent Housing Private Limited, which had entered into a development agreement with the owner of the property M/s.Soni & Sons, through proprietor Bhuralal Pannalal Jain. The copy of the development agreement is placed on record. In terms of clause (7) of the said agreement, the developer had agreed to hand over ground

¶21

2/5

¶22

Urmila Ingale

¶23

ba 41.23.doc

¶24

plus two floors to the owner and the possession of the said premises was handed over for the aforesaid development. In any case, the developer had given the contract of carrying out the construction activity to the contractor i.e. accused nos.2 and 3 and the labour contractor i.e. accused no.4. As far as the shop is concerned, the son of proprietor Bhuralal Jain, Shri Hitesh had given the said shop no.15 on leave and licence to the informant by an agreement executed on 28/7/2021.

¶25

6. On perusal of the work order issued in favour of the contractor M/s. S.K. Patel and Sons, it appears that it was the duty of the contractor to be responsible for the safety of the workmen/staff, supervisor, sub-contractors at the site till completion of the contract. The contractor undertook to indemnify the developer for any losses incurred by the contractor, due to carelessness or irresponsibility of any manner.

¶26

7. I find that there is no agreement between the said contractor S.K. Patel & Sons or the subcontractor and the present applicant. The present applicant is a labour

¶27

3/5

¶28

Urmila Ingale 22. ba 41.23.doc

¶29

contractor who was to supply labour. The applicant is in custody since 19/05/2022 i.e. almost for a period of 9 months. The investigation is complete. The charge-sheet is filed. There are no criminal antecedent reported against the

¶30

applicant. Hence, the following order.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

(a) The application is allowed.

¶33

(b) The applicant –Mr. Rakesh Kumar Rampiyare

¶34

@ Rampyare Gautam in connection with C.R. No. 671 of 2022 registered with Malad Police Station shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶35

(c) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- for a period of 4 weeks in lieu of surety.

¶36

(d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant should not tamper with evidence.

¶37

4/5

¶38

Urmila Ingale

¶39

ba 41.23.doc

¶40

(e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the investigating officer of the concerned Police Station and shall keep him updated, if there is any change

¶41

(f) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when called.

¶42

5 . The application is disposed of.

¶43

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶44

5/5

Rakesh Kumar Rampiyare @ Rampyare Gautam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Rampiyare @ Rampyare Gautam 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

Kiran Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajiram Vishnu Bhoye Vs State of Maharashtra

Ramjan Tajoddin Mulani and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Kamran Khan S/O Aftab Khan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Sheezan Mohd. Khan Alias Sheezan Mohd. Vs State of Maharashtra

Rohitas Paramhans Pathak Vs the State of Maharashtra