Gujarat High Court
Mohanlal Jagannath Khaitan vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1820
of 2026
==========================================================
MOHANLAL JAGANNATH KHAITAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRUTI SHAH FOR MR SAHIL M SHAH(10113) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 23/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT
2. By way of the present Application under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
“BNSS”), the applicant – accused has prayed to release
him on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.1214046251373 of
2025 registered with Palsana Police Station, Surat Rural
for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 106(1),
110, 125(a) & (b), and 54 of BNSS Act.
3. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant Ms. Shah has submitted
that Santosh Textile Limited is engaged in textile
Page 1 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
processing and dyeing activities. It is stated that the
factory premises comprise multiple operational sections,
including a drum washing department wherein large
industrial drum washers are utilized for treatment of
fabrics. It is further contended that the present
Applicant, though a Director of the Company, is not
involved in the day-to-day functioning or operational
management of the business.
4. It is the case of the Applicant that an unfortunate
st
incident occurred on 1 September 2025, when drum
washer No. 10 suddenly burst, resulting in the expulsion
of hot water and metallic fragments. The said fragments
struck a worker present in proximity, and components of
the drum were scattered across the factory floor. It is
further submitted that approximately one and a half
hours after the said incident, a fire broke out within the
factory premises. As a consequence, two workers initially
succumbed to their injuries, and during the course of
subsequent medical treatment, nine additional workers
lost their lives, thereby resulting in eleven fatalities and
thirteen injured persons.
5. It is further submitted that, following the incident, the
local police registered the case treating the same as an
industrial accident arising out of operational negligence.
Page 2 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
A complaint came to be lodged by one of the injured
workers, detailing the sequence of events leading to the
incident, including the sudden opening of the flange of
the drum and the resultant casualties. It is further
contended that, as per the said Complaint, at the
relevant time, the responsible officers of the Drum
Department were not present near the machine, and the
operator of drum No. 10, namely Mr. Anmol Sahu, had
moved to another section of the mill, leaving the drum
in operation unattended. It is alleged that the consequent
rise in pressure and temperature led to the explosion.
6. It is further submitted that the initial First Information
Report came to be registered against three accused
persons, namely: (i) Mr. Anmol Sahu, operator of drum
Nos. 6 and 10; (ii) Mr. Alpeshbhai Tarabhai Patel,
Supervisor of the Drum Department; and (iii) the
responsible officers of Santosh Textile Mill’s Drum
Department, for offences pertaining to negligence and
causing accidental death.
7. It was stated that thereafter, investigation was
undertaken by the Investigating Officer of Palsana Police
Station, who carried out site inspection and recorded
statements of workers, supervisors, and management
personnel. During the course of investigation, the agency
Page 3 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
sought to ascertain the exact cause of the explosion and,
for such purpose, called upon the Factory Inspector as
well as officials of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)
to examine the site and the remnants of the drum
washer.
th
8. It is further submitted that on 13 September 2025, a
supplementary report came to be filed by the
Investigating Agency, wherein three additional persons
were arraigned as accused, namely: (i) Mr. Mukund
Mohanlal Khaitan, Director of Santosh Textile Mill; (ii)
Mr. Kanaiyalal Pokarmal Chaudhary, Manager of the
Maintenance Department; and (iii) Mr. Bipin Vishwanath
Chobe, Maintenance Fitter of the Mill. It is stated that
upon examination of drum washer No. 10, corrosion was
noticed on the flange/moulded flange attached to both the
cell-end side and the dise-end side of the drum washer.
It is further noted that the M.S. bolts used to connect
the said flanges had weakened due to corrosion, and as
a consequence thereof, the bolts failed even under normal
operating pressure, leading to rupture of the drum.
9. It is also recorded in the said report that the drum in
question had been purchased second-hand for a sum of
Rs. 3,00,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid findings,
Sections 105 and 110 of the BNS Act came to be added
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
to the existing offences, thereby incorporating allegations
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and
attempt to commit culpable homicide, in addition to the
earlier offences pertaining to negligence. It is, however,
contended that no expert mechanical or electrical analysis
is available on record to conclusively establish the precise
cause of the accident or to confirm whether the alleged
corrosion was the primary reason for the failure of the
drum washer.
10. It is further argued that, during the course of
investigation, it has emerged that the operator, Mr.
Anmol Sahu, was not present in the drum department at
the time of the explosion, and that the control panel was
not being monitored for pressure and temperature
indicators at the relevant time. The Investigating Agency
is stated to have collected documents including factory
licences, safety certifications, and maintenance records
from the management. It is submitted that the entire
investigation record indicates that the incident occurred
on account of an industrial malfunction or
mechanical/electrical failure of the drum washer, and that
there is no material whatsoever to suggest any intention
or knowledge on the part of any individual to cause
death or bodily injury.
Page 5 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
11. It is further contended that the son of the present
Applicant is the Director of the Mill and is in charge of
production as well as day-to-day operations. The
Applicant, aged about 75 years, is not involved in routine
business affairs or managerial decisions. It is also
submitted that the Applicant was not present in Surat at
the time of the incident and had been in Calcutta for
approximately ten days prior thereto. It is further
submitted that, subsequent to the incident, the Applicant
did visit Palsana Police Station. Ld. Advocate for the
Applicant has further argued that the management took
immediate and proactive steps by ensuring hospitalization
of all injured workers, arranging ambulance services, and
extending compensation and ex gratia assistance
amounting to more than Rs. 1.35 crore to the affected
families and injured persons. It is also submitted that all
medical expenses have been borne by the Applicant and
his son.
12. It is lastly submitted that the investigation in the
present case is substantially complete and that all
relevant evidence has already been collected by the
Investigating Agency. The prosecution case, it is
contended, now rests upon documentary and other
material already in the custody of the Investigating
Agency. In such circumstances, it is urged that no
Page 6 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
custodial interrogation of the present Applicant is
warranted.
13. It is also argued by learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant is reputed person in the society and
that there are no criminal antecedents and having deep
roots in the society and has falsely been implicated in
the FIR to tarnish his image. That, in the FIR, there is
no allegation against the petitioner to constitute vicarious
liability and therefore, prayed to allow this Application.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PROSECUTION
14. Per contra, Ld. APP for the Respondent-State has
opposed the Application and submitted that the present
Applicant is a Director of Santosh Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd.
It is contended that (i) the licence issued under the
Factories Act reflects the name of the Applicant as one
of the Directors; (ii) renewal granted under Rules 4 and
7 of the said Act also records the Applicant as Director
and authorized signatory of the Company. On this basis,
it is argued that the Applicant cannot disclaim
involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the Company.
15. It is further submitted that, in the Statement of the
Applicant’s son recorded during investigation, it has been
admitted that he, along with the present Applicant, are
Page 7 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
functioning as Managing Director of Santosh Textile Mill
Pvt. Ltd.
16. It is also pointed out that a warrant of arrest under
Section 72 of the BNS has been issued against the
Applicant on account of his alleged non-cooperation with
the investigation. In such circumstances, it is urged that
custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary to
ascertain the true facts of the case and to facilitate a
fair and effective investigation.
REASONING
17. Having heard Ld. Advocates for the respective parties
and upon consideration of the material placed on record,
this Court has examined the rival submissions advanced
on both sides.
18. It is well settled that, while considering an Application
for bail, the Court is required to take into account, inter
alia, the following factors: (i) whether there exists any
prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused has committed the offence; (ii) the nature and
gravity of the accusation; (iii) the severity of punishment
in the event of conviction; (iv) the likelihood of the
accused absconding or fleeing from justice if released on
bail; and (v) the character, behaviour, means, position,
Page 8 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
and standing of the accused. It is equally settled that, at
the stage of considering bail, detailed appreciation or
evaluation of evidence is not warranted. Upon perusal of
the complaint, this Court finds that, prima facie, the
involvement of the present Applicant in the alleged
offence cannot be ruled out.
19. It would be apposite to refer to the settled principles
governing grant of pre-arrest bail. In Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , the Hon’ble
Apex Court has elaborately laid down the parameters to
be considered while dealing with an application for
anticipatory bail.
20. This Court had called for the papers of investigation
from the Ld. APP and during the hearing, this Court
has perused the same. Upon perusal thereof, it transpires
that the present Applicant is a Director of Santosh
Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. The licence issued under the
Factories Act for running the factory also reflects the
name of the Applicant as one of the Directors. Though it
has been contended by Ld. Advocate for the Applicant
that the Applicant does not participate in the day-to-day
affairs of the Company and that the same are handled
by his son, Mukund Khaitan, the record prima facie,
indicates otherwise.
Page 9 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
21. The renewal of licence under Sections 4 and 7 of the
Factories Act, in respect of the premises situated at
Block No. 238, Village Jolwa, the place where the
incident in question occurred also reflects the name of
the present Applicant as Director. Not only that, the said
renewal application bears the signature of the Applicant
himself. In such circumstances, it cannot be accepted, at
this stage, that the Applicant was not actively involved
in the affairs of the Company.
22. It further appears that the application for renewal of
th
licence was submitted on 19 September 2023 under
Rules 4 and 7 of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963,
bearing the signature of the Applicant as
Director/authorized signatory.
23. Pursuant thereto, the licence came to be renewed for a
period of three years, i.e., up to December 2026. The
st
incident in question having occurred on 1 September
2025, it is evident that the said licence was valid and
subsisting at the relevant point of time. The licence, as
issued by the Chief Inspector, permitted the Applicant to
use the premises as a factory in accordance with the
particulars furnished. Prima facie, it appears that the
said Application was submitted by the Applicant in the
capacity of occupier and manager of Santosh Textile Pvt.
Page 10 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
Ltd., as per the Rules.
24. Further, the renewal documents under Rules 4 and 7
disclose detailed particulars regarding the manufacturing
process, including the stages of production, list of raw
materials, intermediate and finished products, emission of
gases, storage and handling methods, transportation, and
disposal of trade waste and effluents. These documents,
which form part of the investigation record, which had to
be submitted alongwith the application and the said
application, bear the signature of the present Applicant.
Upon perusal of the said Rules, particularly Form No. 3
prescribed thereunder, it is evident that the application
for registration and grant or renewal of licence is
required to be made by the occupier or manager of the
factory. The fact that the application for renewal has
been submitted under the signature of the present
Applicant, as reflected from the investigation papers,
prima facie indicates that the Applicant was involved in
the conduct of the affairs of the Company.
25. Moreover, from the record, including the Certificate
issued by the Industrial Safety and Health Department,
th
Surat, dated 11 September 2025, it is issued to the
applicant. Moreover, it is revealed that the son of the
Applicant has stated that the present Applicant is the
Page 11 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
owner and occupier of the premises. In such
circumstances, it becomes incumbent upon the
Investigating Agency to ascertain and identify the person
responsible for the alleged negligence which led to the
st
incident dated 1 September 2025.
26. From the material on record, it prima facie appears that
the present Applicant was involved in the day-to-day
functioning of the Company. The investigation further
nd
reveals that on 2 September 2025, a Notice was issued
to the Applicant by the Industrial Safety and Health
Department, Surat. It has also come on record that the
operator, Mr. Anmol Sahu, who was employed in the
Company where the present Applicant is a Director, was
not present at the time of the incident. Further, the
investigation indicates that the drums installed in the
factory were sub-standard in nature. The panchnama,
forming part of the investigation papers, records that
faulty drums were installed by the Company and that
the operator of drum Nos. 6 and 10 was absent at the
relevant time.
27. These aspects prima facie suggest negligence attributable
to the premises in which the Applicant is a Director.
The record further indicates that the Company had
continued to operate with sub-standard drums, and that,
Page 12 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
had the equipment conformed to prescribed norms, the
unfortunate incident could possibly have been averted.
28. It further appears from the investigation that, even after
the addition of offences under Sections 105 and 110 of
the BNS, the Applicant has not cooperated with the
investigation. Consequently, a warrant under Section 72
of the BNSS came to be issued against the Applicant.
Despite the same, the Applicant did not remain present,
and he has been declared absconding, thereby impeding
the progress of investigation insofar as the present
Applicant is concerned.
29. In the present case, as many as eleven persons have lost
their lives as a result of the incident. Considering the
nature and gravity of the offence, and the fact that the
incident occurred in an establishment where the
Applicant is a Director, coupled with the material
indicating his involvement in the licensing and
operational aspects of the factory, this Court is of the
view that the issue as to whether the Applicant was
directly negligent would be a matter for trial.
30. However, at this stage, the seriousness of the allegations
and the magnitude of the incident necessitate custodial
interrogation of the Applicant for the purpose of arriving
at the truth. The statement of the co-accused, namely
Page 13 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
the son of the Applicant, indicating that the Applicant is
the Managing Director, though not to be tested at this
stage, is a relevant circumstance which weighs against
the Applicant. Having regard to the overall facts, the
nature of the offence, and the gravity involved, this
Court finds that custodial interrogation of the Applicant
is imperative.
31. From the material on record, it prima facie emerges that
control over the premises was also vested in the Director
of the Company, i.e., the present Applicant, and the
extent of his negligence would be a matter to be
adjudicated during trial, especially in view of, having
regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the matter
warrants cautious consideration at this stage.
32. The Applicant, being a Director of the Company, prima
facie appears to have exercised control over the
operations and to have borne responsibility for ensuring
compliance with safety norms. In such circumstances, it
cannot be accepted, at this stage, that no vicarious
liability can be attributed to him. The incident has
resulted in multiple fatalities and serious injuries, raising
grave concerns regarding safety violations. Therefore,
custodial interrogation of the Applicant appears necessary,
particularly to trace the decision-making process and to
Page 14 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
identify the chain of responsibility.
33. Further, in a matter involving such serious allegations,
the Investigating Officer must be afforded adequate
latitude to carry the investigation to its logical
conclusion, including identifying the cause of the safety
lapses and fixing accountability. Merely because a
chargesheet has been filed qua other accused persons, as
contended by Ld. APP, would not justify presuming that
the custodial interrogation of the present Applicant is not
required for the purpose of further investigation.
34. It is also required to be noted that the material aspects
relating to maintenance decisions, procurement of
machinery, and compliance with statutory safety norms
are matters within the special knowledge of the
management of the establishment, and therefore, the
presence of the Applicant is necessary to enable the
Investigating Agency to effectively unravel the sequence
of events. At this stage, it cannot be said that the entire
chain of events leading to the incident has been fully
unearthed, and therefore, any pre-arrest protection may,
at this stage, impede the process of effective
investigation.
35. The possibility of the Applicant influencing the course of
investigation or evading the process of law also cannot
Page 15 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
be ruled out, particularly in view of his position in the
Company.
36. In the case of Sumitha Pradeep V/s Arun Kumar C.K. &
Anr. Reported in (2022) 17 SCC 391, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that
“There appears to be a serious misconception
of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution,
then that alone would be a good ground to
grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation
can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while
deciding an application seeking anticipatory
bail. There may be many cases in which the
custodial interrogation of the accused may not
be required, but that does not mean that the
prima facie case against the accused should
be ignored or overlooked and he should be
granted anticipatory bail. The first and
foremost thing that the court hearing an
anticipatory bail application should consider is
the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence
should be looked into along with the severity
Page 16 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can
be one of the grounds to decline custodial
interrogation. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated,
by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail.”
37. Thus, from the aforesaid, it prima facie appears that a
case is made out against the present Applicant for the
alleged offences. It is also a matter of record that the
chargesheet has already been filed qua the other accused
persons, and a notice under Section 72 of the BNSS
th
came to be issued against the Applicant on 20
December 2025. In such circumstances, this Court is of
the view that the present case does not warrant exercise
of discretion in favour of the Applicant for grant of
anticipatory bail. This Court would not be inclined to
extend protection to an accused who has not cooperated
with the Investigating Agency and has remained
absconding, against whom coercive process, including
issuance of non-bailable warrant under Section 72 of the
BNSS, has been initiated.
38. The submission that the other accused have been
released on regular bail would not entitle the present
Applicant to claim parity for grant of anticipatory bail.
Page 17 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
At this stage, this Court is not required to conclusively
determine whether the negligent act led to the
unfortunate incident or whether any intention can be
attributed to the Applicant resulting in death or injury.
It is required to be noted that the considerations
governing grant of regular bail and anticipatory bail
stand on a different footing. Naturally, regular bail is
considered after arrest and upon the accused being
available for investigation, anticipatory bail is a pre-
arrest protection granted in exceptional circumstances. In
the present case, the Applicant has not cooperated with
the investigation and has remained unavailable, and
therefore, the parameters applicable to anticipatory bail
would not permit grant of relief merely on the ground
that co-accused have been enlarged on regular bail. For
such purpose, custodial interrogation of the Applicant
appears to be necessary.
39. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra),
the Hon’ble Court held that life and personal liberty are
the most prized possessions of an individual but not at
the cost of larger interest of society and public. This is
not a case, wherein accused is falsely enraged in the
offence with a view to tarnish his image. Considering the
fact that the custodial interrogation is required. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs
Page 18 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2012 4 SCC 379, has
been pleased to hold as under:-
“Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offences are required to be satisfied
and further while granting such relief, the
court must record the reasons therefore.
Anticipatory bail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances where the Court is
prima facie of the view that the applicant has
falsely been enroped in the crime and would
not misuse his liberty.”
40. It would be apposite to refer the decision of the Apex
Court rendered in case of State of M.P. and another v.
Ram Kishna Balothia and another reported in AIR 1995
SC 1198.
41. It would be apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court rendered in case of Pratibha Manchanda vs.
State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
“19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed
at safeguarding individual rights. While it
serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse
of the power of arrest and protects innocentPage 19 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
individuals from harassment, it also presents
challenges in maintaining a delicate balance
between individual rights and the interests of
justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in
striking a balance between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting public
interest. While the right to liberty and
presumption of innocence are vital, the court
must also consider the gravity of the offence,
the impact on society, and the need for a fair
and free investigation. The court’s discretion
in weighing these interests in the facts and
circumstances of each individual case becomes
crucial to ensure a just outcome.”
42. If the present applicant is/are protected with this order,
this Court is of the considered view that if the present
accused is equipped with protective order, it would
obviously affect the case of the prosecution and adversely
the qualitative investigation. This is not a fit case,
wherein accused is falsely enraged in the offence and it
appears that there is no frivolity, with a view to tarnish
his image. Considering the fact that the custodial
interrogation is required.
43. In brief, the reasons which emanate from perusal of the
Page 20 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
record are summarized hereinunder again:
(i) The Applicant is a Director of the Company, and
his name appears in the factory licence and its
renewal application bearing his signature.
th
(ii) The licence renewal dated 19 September 2023,
which was signed by the Applicant, was valid till
December 2026 and subsisting on the date of the
incident.
(iii) The renewal documents, detailing manufacturing
processes and safety compliance, are signed by the
Applicant, indicating prima facie role of the
Applicant in operations.
(iv) Under Rules 4 and 7, such applications are to be
made by the occupier/manager; the Applicant’s
signature prima facie reflects his involvement in theaffairs of the Company.
(v) The certificate dated 11.09.2025 records the
Applicant as owner and occupier of the premises.
(vi) A notice dated 02.09.2025 was issued to the
Applicant by the Industrial Safety and Health
Department.
(vii) The investigation reveals absence of the operator
Page 21 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
and use of sub-standard drums at the time of the
incident.
(viii) Installation of faulty equipment and lack of
supervision prima facie indicate negligence in
operations.
(ix) The Applicant has not cooperated with the
investigation, leading to issuance of warrant under
Section 72 of the BNSS and declaration as
absconding.
(x) Considering the death of eleven persons and the
circumstances indicating prima facie negligence in
the functioning of the establishment, the role and
extent of responsibility of the Applicant is required
to be ascertained, and therefore, custodial
interrogation is necessary for an effectiveinvestigation.
44. In view of the foregoing reasons and having regard to
the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions of this
Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is
of the opinion that the present case does not warrant
exercise of discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS in
favour of the Applicant.
45. The present Application, therefore, deserves to be rejected
Page 22 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1820/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
and is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
46. It is clarified that the observations made herein are
prima facie and tentative in nature, and shall not
influence the proceedings at trial.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SRILATHA
Page 23 of 23
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 22:19:57 IST 2026