IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA th ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57166 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

RAKESH BINDAL S/O DWARKADHISH BINDAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL AREA DEWAS ROAD, NAGJHIRI NEAR PANCHAYAT PRESS UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NAGJHIRI DISTT.

UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....NON APPLICANT ( BY SHRI VIRAJJ GODHHA - PANEL LAWYER)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.362/2022 registered at P.S. - Nagjhiri, Ujjain (M.P.)

for commission of offence punishable under Section 285, 304 & 308 of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, on 16.9.2022 three Merg intimations were registered as a result of death due to fire accident in industrial area. Present Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR applicant operates Poha Factory of Bindal Process Industrial Area as owner and co-accused Rakesh Bindal is the manager of the said factory. As per the inspection, at the time of accident the site/part of the factory that caught fire, was covered from three sides along with the top with a thick plastic sheet and that there was no space for outflow/exit of any air. There was no reasonable technology for fast cooling down of the heavy electric motors and there was no sufficient means to tackle sudden fire. Flammable raw material was spread across the accident spot and the road to and from the work place was not smooth and suitable. Present applicant and the co-accused Sagar yadav had complete knowledge of the workers in the factory and they also had the knowledge that the way the factory was operating, would certainly catch fire and the workers may die. They are equally responsible for the above incident.

Accordingly offence has been registered against them.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The factory which happens to be the place of accident, operates with all due permissions and approvals of the authorities and owner of the unit has obtained the license to work a factory in accordance with the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 and the M.P. Factories Rules, 1962 and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The business unit happens to be one regular import-export unit and the area where accident took place was covered from three sides and the top was covered and the area does have proper scope for outflow of air. All the safety measures were duly taken by the applicant and its Manager. The fire safety measures were installed and have regularly been inspected and serviced by the professionals. The ISO and other service certificates were duly issued. In absence of essential ingredient of mens-rea, no offence under Section 304 and 308 of IPC is made out. It is only Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR an accident. Applicant is owner of the said factory. He is a permanent resident of District Ujjain and there is no apprehension of his fleeing away from the court of justice. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shamsher Khan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2000) 8 SCC 568, wherein it has been held that:-

"10. Appellant was convicted under Sec. 304 and 308 of IPC. Both the offences relate to commission and attempt to commit culpable homicide respectively. So culpable homicide is the common factor in both Courts. Section 299 of the Penal Code, 1860 defines culpable homicide, which has three alternative requirements. They are:-

1. Doing an act with the int