sns 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.824 OF 2011 Shri Shankar G. Upadhyay & Anr. ..Applicants. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Mr. A.P.Mundargi Sr.Counsel a/w Subodh Desai i/by D.S.K.Legal, advs. for the Applicants. Ms P.P.Shinde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 4th October, 2011 PC : 1 Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in crime no.135 of 2011 registered with Boisar police station for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 284, 287 IPC. 2 F.I.R. lodged on 20.9.2011 by one Sonu Munna Singh and other documents reveal that the applicant no.1 Shankar Upadhyay was the chief manager and the applicant no.2 Sanjiv Patil was production manager while one Chaudhary was supervisor. These persons were responsible for day-to-day running of the factory of Sequent Scientific Ltd. situated at MIDC area of Boisar. The said factory was engaged in the production of veternary drugs in which several poisonous gases, including hydrogen sulphide, were used. On 20.9.2011 at about 7 p.m. on 3rd floor of the factory there was sns 2 leakage of hydrogen sulphide gas and as a result of the same, four persons died and ten persons were affected and were required to be admitted for treatment in the hospital. As per the F.I.R. , no safety measures were taken nor any gas mask was given to the workers nor any training was given to the workers for their protection in the case of gas leakage and thus, disaster management was completely absent. In view of the F.I.R., the present applicants and supervisor Chaudhary were mainly responsible for the up- keepment and maintenance of the factory and for the safety of the workers. 3 According to the applicants, all the necessary safety measures were taken. Proper training was also given to the staff members but it was unfortunate that the HDPE/PVC pipe was ruptured resulting in leakage of hydrogen sulphide gas. It is contended that there are sufficient documents to support this contention of the applicants. Some of the workers were also given proper training As per the documents available with the applicants and the factory. Taking into consideration these circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants contended that it may be only a case of accident as there was no mens-rea and at the most Sec.304A IPC may be applied but no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC i.e., the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The learned senior counsel also relied upon the inspection report dated 21.9.2011 from the Maharashtra Pollution Control sns 3 Board as well as the report dated 24.9.2011 from the Deputy Director of Industrial Safety and Health Department. 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the papers, at this stage, it would be too early to comment whether it is case of pure accident or case under Section 304A or it amounts to case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC. That will depend upon the investigation of the case. Inspection report dated 21.9.2011 from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board shows that there was no defect in the pollution control system nor any defect was found in the system. On the other hand, the report dated 24.9.2011 from the Deputy Director Industrial Safety and Health Department reveals that the leakage of H2S (Hydrogen Sulphide) gas had taken place due to the rupture of HDPE/PVC pipe carrying the gas. Thus, these two reports are conflicting. Even though according to the applicants, all the safety measures were taken and proper training was also given to the workers, the fact remains that there was leakage of the gas resulting into the death of four persons and health of ten other workers were put in jeopardy and they were required to be given medical treatment. This could not have happened if there would be proper maintenance of machinery and pipes and if there would be sufficient safety measures at place. If the workers were given proper training and were also provided with gas masks, it is not clear how so many sns 4 workers were affected by the gas leakage and how four workers had died in that incident. It does not appear that any of those workers was wearing gas mask at the relevant time. At least, at this stage, it is difficult to believe that they would not have used gas masks for their own safety. Whether such gas masks were provided, whether proper training was given to the workers or safety measures were taken need to be investigated thoroughly. Taking into consideration nature of the incident, detail interrogation of the applicants, who were responsible for the upkeepment and maintenance of the factory as well as safety of the workers is needed. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 5 Therefore, application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)