The court held that principal employers can be held liable under the Atrocities Act for failing to prevent manual scavenging, emphasizing the importance of supervision and safety measures.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

"For ours is a battle not for wealth or for power. It is a battle for freedom. It is the battle of reclamation of human personality."

— Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

(Address at the All-India Depressed Classes Conference held at Nagpur in July 1942.)

1. Both applicants are facing the same allegations, and their respective anticipatory bail applications were rejected by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) by assigning same reasons. Hence, both the appeals were, with consent, heard together and decided by a common oral order.

2. Admit. Learned APP waives service of notice for the respondent-State and Mr. M. G. Gadhvi, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission for the respondent-complaint.

3. The present appeals, filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Atrocities Act'), are preferred by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR No. I-C.R. 11211005250023 of 2025, registered with Patdi Police Station, Surendranagar for the punishable under Sections 105, 125 and 54 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(j) of the Atrocities Act and Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Prohibition Employment as Manual Scavenger and their the Act, 2013, 2013 ( for short, “the Act, 2013”) by assailing the dismissal orders dated 12.02.2025 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge Dhrangadhra in Criminal Misc. Application No.31 of 2025 and in Criminal Misc. Application No.32 of 2025.

4. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2025, Harshadbhai Danubhai Katariya, is serving as a Sanitary Officer in Patdi Nagarpalika, while the appellant Mosambhai Ghanshyambhai Patel in Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2025 is the Chief Officer of Patdi Nagarpalika.

5. Upon issuance of the notice, learned advocate Mr. M.V. Gadhvi has filed an objection on behalf of the complainant which is considered.

6. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that three persons namely, Chiragbhai Kanubhai Patadiya, Jayeshbhai Bharatbhai Patadiya, and Chetanbhai Mangabhai Patadiya were working on a contract basis with Patdi Nagarpalika. On 21.01.2025, at around 8:00 a.m., they received oral instructions from their contractor and officers of the Nagarpalika to pump and clean the sewers located near Devotion School. While cleaning the sewer, which was approximately 15 to 20 feet deep, Chiragbhai and Jayeshbhai entered the manhole and around 11:30 a.m., while they were working inside, there was a gas leak, and due to the release of toxic gas into the chamber, both Chiragbhai and Jayeshbhai died of asphyxiation. Thereafter, Chetanbhai Patadiya suffered toxic gas exposure while attempting to rescue his colleagues. Consequently, the impugned FIR came to be lodged by the uncle of deceased Jayeshbhai Bharatbhai Patadiya for the offence under Sections 105, 125 and 54 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(j) of the Atrocities Act and Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act, 2013.

7. Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M.V. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have nothing to do with the offence have been falsely implicated. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the entire case has been fabricated with the intention of falsely implicating the appellants. The appellants have no past antecedents. There is no direct involvement of the present appellants in the cleaning work, as the deceased were outsourced by the contractor. Any lapses or negligence in this regard attributed to the contractor, who is accused No. 3 herein. The contract/agreement was executed between the contractor and Nagarpalika, and as per its terms and conditions, the contractor was responsible for carrying out the cleaning work. The appellants have no role in this matter once the work was assigned to the contractor. The contractor violated the terms of the contract, particularly conditions No. 3