Abdul Rahman vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.01.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 304 of I.P.C. in Crime No.14 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.01.2023 the defacto complainant's daughter went from his residence to her office and when she is walking nearby sub-way at Thousand Lights, a building was demolished without following any safety measures, thereby wall fell on his daughter, due to which, victim sustained serious injuries and died. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the contractor and he has given all necessary instruments for safety, but on the day of occurrence, he was not present and he is also not aware as to what happened there. He would submit that he has followed all the guidelines and provided all safety equipments to the workers, but it would be the fault on his workers. So, he is an innocent person and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. He would submit that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not at all committed any offence. He would also submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 28 days from 29.01.2023 and co-accused were released on bail. On instructions, he would further submit that without prejudice to his right and contentions, he is prepared to deposit/pay some considerable amount. Accordingly, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner is the contractor and he is arrayed as A3. He would submit that he is the main person in arranging the contract and while demolishing the building, he has not provided necessary equipments for safety, thereby victim girl, who is aged about 22 years was died due to debris from the building fallen on her, due to which, parents of victim girl suffered much hardship. He would submit that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the submissions of both sides as well as nature of offence, and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed and co-accused were released on bail and on considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail the petitioner with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) into the credit of Crime No.14 of 2023 before the concerned Magistrate within a period of two weeks from the date of release and the parents of victim girl is permitted to withdraw the deposit amount on proper identification and acknowledgment. Therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and on further conditions that::

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of two months;

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.