Allowed

Santu Malik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Mar 2023MCRCA/149/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to four applicants accused of negligence leading to an accident on an under-construction overbridge. The Court held that the incident resulted in deaths due to negligence under Section 304-A IPC rather than intention under Section 304-II IPC.

What did the court decide?

Grants anticipatory bail subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 50,000 and other conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

Santu Malik Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 149 of 2023

¶5

Santu Malik, S/o Nazrul Malik, Aged About 47 Years, Presently R/o Jaipur, Howrah West Bengal, District : Howrah, West Bengal.

¶6

Aniruddha Jain, S/o Late Anil Kumar Jain, Aged About 33 Years, Presently R/o 9 Petroriya Street, Middle Town, Kolkata West Bengal, District : Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶7

Jitendra Kumar Jain, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Jain, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 3 B, Kamak Street V T C Park Street Kolkata West Bengal, District : Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶8

Shreyansh Jain, S/o Sanmar Mal Jain, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 3 B, Kamak Street V. T. C. Park Street Kolkata West Bengal, District : Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶9

---- Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, Through -District Magistrate Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-Applicant

¶12

For Applicants : Shri Soumitra Sen, Senior Advocate along with Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Avinash K. Mishra, G.A. and Shri Sushil Sahu, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

09.03.2023

¶15

Heard.

¶16

1. The applicants have preferred this application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.353/2022 for the offence punishable under

¶17

-2-

¶18

Sections 304 and 337 of the IPC, registered at Police Station- Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

1. Learned State counsel would submit that during investigation, the police has added Section 304 Part – II of the IPC also.

¶20

1. As per the prosecution story, the present applicants are the Director and Project Co-Coordinator and Project Manager of Royal Infraconstru Limited. A work of construction of overbridge was awarded to the company by the National Highways Authorities. A letter of intent was issued on 02.07.2018 and parties entered into an agreement on 17.07.2018. The project is situated between Raipur and Durg at Kumhari. The work was to be completed within 730 days and same has been extended from time to time and last extension was granted till 24.04.2023, which is not over yet. Though, the construction of over-bridge was not complete, it was opened for general public by the State Authorities as a result of which, on 09.12.2022, two persons lost their lives in an accident which had taken place on the over-bridge, thereafter, police registered offence against the present applicants as stated above.

¶21

1. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the construction was not complete then also it was opened for general public by the State Authorities, therefore, letters were given on 12.11.2021, 08,12,2021 and 13.06.2022 to the Chief Engineer, PWD, NH-Division, Raipur stating therein that entire traffic is moving in the left hand side carriage way of Kumhari GS without any prior notice which resulted in stopping of the machinery movements as well as friction slab erection work at approach portion. It is also stated that if any accident happens in near future then the company will not be held responsible. It is further submitted that when the incident took place, the work was under

¶22

-3-

¶23

construction, despite many letters written to the National Highways Officials to stop the traffic from left hand side carriage way, nothing was done in response. He would further submit that if bridge was opened for general public then management of traffic was duty of the Traffic Police. He would submit that the applicants are staying in Calcutta, from where they are operating the entire business, thus, they can not be held vicariously liable for the accident that took place at Kumhari on account of negligence of the State Authorities. He would further submit that the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC is not made out as intention part is missing. He would also submit that if entire allegations stated in the FIR are taken to be true, the offence punishable under Section 304 A of the IPC would be made out against the present applicants. He would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicants.

¶24

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State Shri Avinash K. Mishra and Shri Sushil Sahu would oppose the bail application. They would submit that the applicants ought to have taken due care as the road was opened for general public after taking due consent of the company and the authorities were aware of this fact that the traffic has been permitted to travel over the bridge. They would also submit that on account of negligence on the part of present applicants, accident took place and two persons lost their lives. They would pray for rejection of this bail application.

¶25

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection.

¶26

1. From the case diary, it appears that on 09.12.2022, two persons lost their lives on account of an accident as their moped fell down in a pit of under-construction project. The letters written by the applicants’ company on 12.11.2021, 8,12,2021 and 13.06.2022 (Annexure A8) to the Chief

¶27

-4-

¶28

Engineer, PWD, NH-Division, Raipur have not been made part of the charge-sheet, whereas the applicants had already informed the authorities to not allow the traffic to run on the over-bridge project. In the instant case, death of two persons has been caused on account of negligence, which would fall under Section 304-A of the IPC. Further, Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide ‘ whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.’

¶29

1. From the provision given under Sections 299 and 304-A of the IPC and looking to the facts of the case, it is apparent that the accident dated 09.12.2022 was result of negligent act, done by the present applicants and it cannot be said that it was intentional, further considering the fact that the present applicants are operating their company from Calcutta, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail by extending the benefit of Section 438 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed .

¶30

1. It is directed that in the event of each of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer, they shall be released on anticipatory bail, on following conditions :-

¶31

(a) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶32

(b) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and

¶33

-5-

¶34

¶35

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Nadim

Santu Malik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santu Malik v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Yadurai Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhnandan Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammed Sabir Razavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toman Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tarun Kumar Dutta Vs State of Chhattisgarh