Zaheer Alam Khan, So. Mehaboob Khan Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

1. The Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 facing charge for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, under investigation in Cr. No.294/2010.

2. It is alleged petitioner is doing business in a shop at Ummerkhyam Road at Mysore dealing in scrap and such other used items. On 24-12-2010 when the Complainant Chand Pasha went to the shop to collect money, the petitioner asked him to press the used perfume cylinder. He declined as he apprehended danger. However, petitioner is alleged to have persuaded him to do so and other persons on the job were engaged in the said work, which include a fourteen year old boy.

3. The prosecution case is at 2-00 PM there was explosion in the shop resulting in fire. Due to the fire accident four persons including a boy aged 14 years, suffered burn injuries. Despite treatment the victims died. The prosecution has held the petitioner responsible for culpable negligence as he had compelled the employees to engage in destroying perfume cylinders, which were not actually totaily empty. Besides, he is now indicted for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

4. No doubt, the material collected by the prosecution shows four persons including a young boy of 14 years of age died. The prosecution itself has alleged incident was due to his culpable negligence, but not due to his criminal intention. Section 304 IPC is raised. The contention of the learned counsel that the offence could fall at the most under Section 304-A IPC needs to be taken note of though it will he considered by jurisdictional court at appropriate stage. However, at this stage, considering the allegations in its entirety, I am satisfied that petitioner could be admitted to bail as punishment which will visit him even on proof of guilt may not be severe. He is also said to be residing within the jurisdiction of respondent Police Station and hence chances of absconding is nill. In the result, I pass the following order:

Petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to following conditions:

1. he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, incharge of the investigation, within two weeks and on his appearance the Investigating Officer shall arrest and release him on executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-with one surety to the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

2. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days on Saturdays between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. till completion of investigation; the Investigating Officer is directed to detain him for the purpose of investigation and recovery, if any up to four hours during the day;

3. he shall engage in no act adverse to the prosecution;

4. he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station, without prior permission;

5. he shall not tamper with or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner; Within three weeks of his arrest and release in the manner aforesaid, he shall seek grant of regular bail before the trial court, failing which the benefit of this order shall be revoked.