State v. Sharad Indu Goel

AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 6, 2024 'KDK' / UG/SS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:6th March,2024 + CRL.M.C. 3850/2019 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Pankaj Kumar, CR/Crime Branch. versus RAKESH GOEL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanchit Garga, Adv. (through VC) + CRL.M.C. 3854/2019 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Pankaj Kumar, CR / Crime Branch. versus SHARAD INDU GOEL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanchit Garga, Adv. (through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN 1. The present petitions are filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging the order dated 10.05.2019 (hereafter 'impugned order'), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No. 65/2019 dated 12.02.2019, registered at Police Station Karol Bagh, for offences under Sections 304/308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order, had granted bail to the respondents / accused (s). 3. The FIR was registered on an information received from the PCR on 12.02.2019 at 4:43 a.m. that fire broke out at hotel Arpit, Karol Bagh, Delhi. On the said information, the concerned Police Officials reached the spot where the rescue operation was already being carried out. It was alleged that twenty one people were rescued from the hotel, out of which seventeen people expired and four were injured. 4. It was alleged that the respondents in connivance with each other had obtained the clearances from various departments on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and they did not undertake adequate safety measures for the hotel. It was alleged that neither any fire alarm was installed in the hotel nor any fire fighting equipment were installed. It was further alleged that the respondents violated the necessary rules and regulations which were essential for the construction of the said hotel. 5. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the respondents Rakesh Goel and Sharad Indu Goel were arrested on 16.02.2019 and 19.02.2019 respectively. It is alleged that the respondents were managing the affairs of the hotel namely – Arpit Palace, Karol Bagh, Delhi. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi by the impugned order granted bail to the respondents. 7. The petitioner/State has challenged the impugned order and further seeks to set aside the same by cancelling the regular bail granted to the respondents, mainly on the ground that the learned ASJ has committed gross errors of law and ignored crucial evidence on record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State submits that the order granting bail in a serious offence, is unjustified, illegal and perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order observed that the police had not been able to point out which conscious act or omission on the part of the respondents led to the fire breaking out. A wire short circuit, assuming it to be cause of the fire, could not have been anticipated and the respondents' prior knowledge of its occurrence has not been attributed by the police. It held that the present case bears striking resemblance to the facts of Uphaar tragedy case wherein, though the investigation revealed that the owners were at fault for the incident due to a multitude of deviations from norms and failure to adopt prescribed safety measures, the learned Trial Court convicted the owners of the cinema hall for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC and not Section 304 of the IPC. It was thus, held that notwithstanding the irregularities or the deviations being found, only the offence under Section 304A of the IPC is made out. 9. The learned Trial Court also noted that the respondents had already spent almost ninety days in incarceration and that the chargesheet had already been filed, therefore, the respondents were no longer requir