Full Text
+ BAIL APPL]>|.1886/2017
PIYUSHKUMAR GUPTA d ••
^ i • i , , . • --i Petitioner I
:^ . j i . by: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr.
^ , / Advocate with Mr. Bharat .
'i ' I , Sharma, Advocate: i'
• • i . ,
(Net OF DELHI) ; p •
V / ^withACPAmitKaushik
: +' , bailAPPLN. 2196/2017 ' : ^anoj, PS t.P. Estate..
OMPRAKASH GUPTA „
T> 1, —..Petitioner
, ^ ^ ;
• . Advocate with Mr. Bharat
• ' ' ' /Sharma, Advocate: ^
• ^ \ •, .
STAtE(NCT OF DELHI) • V _ ; , :• Mr. Ashok^Gar^^
; • State with AGPAmilKaushik
; ; CO^M: . ; . : SI Manoj, PS I.P. Estate.
HON'BLEMa:justiceMUKTA GUPTA
' order . •
.03.04.2018'.
By these petitions, petitioners seek anticipatory;bail in case FIR No
2^017 under Sections 304/308/120B/34 IPO r^ad with ^Sebtion 7/9 of
A°t Scavengers id-their Rehabilitation
Act, 2013,and Secti0.14(i) ofthe Scheduled Cast^and Scheduled Trib^ bailAPPLN. m6/2dl7& 2196/2017 „ i
2018:DHC:8183
(ProhibitionofAtrocities)ActregisteredatPS I.P. Estate, Delhi
!n J A ™ ~d on 20 August, 2017 infonning that aman became unconscious during de^mgofthesewerline. OnreachingLoWyakHospitalitwasfound that k1 B -ely an B,Shan and Sumit were under treatment. Statement ofSumit who fit formalongstatementwasrecorded, whostatedthathewas working as sewer man at Lolcnayak Hospital on contract basis through M/s Anup
E..,™ „ 3. ^
^rected themto cleanthe sewerbehind wardNos. 13 and 14ofLoknayak
Hospital. The complainant told them th,t the sewers,were deep and they r rr'mT et . On th.s Mahesh'stated that the contractor Piyush Kumar Gupta the pet.t.oner nBailApphNo.,S86/2017haddirectedthemtoc,ean«,es:wer : mes and he d.d not have any safety equipments. Despite informing, they
•fromthejob. At about '2.00 noonthey reached atthe sewer line, opened the fear oflosmg theirjobs they decided to enter into the sewer TT,e
,oom^amantwentto takealadderfrom the in.uityoffice. Whenhecame ackhe found that both Rishi Pal andBishanhad enteredthe sewer. Whe. he.lled.emR^^^^^^^
^^ILAPPLN. 1886/2017&2196/2017 ofthesewer. Rishi Palwas takenoutfrom the sewerwhowas unconscious.
The mam argument oflearned counsel for the petitioners is that the peftroners who are running M/s Anup Enterprises did nothave the contract ofcleanmg ofLoknayak Hospital and their contracthad cometo an end on report. As.per a,e status report victims were employees of M/s Anup ntopnses and had received salaries till the month ofJuly, 2017. Despite the fact that the tender had expired adecision was taken that till the time newtenders were openedand contractawarded, the labourworking withthe contractor would continue to look after the works. The subsequent award orcleanmg ofsewerwas awarded to M/s Ram CharanBansal on 3-My
JUDGMENT
017. However, as per the status report the said contract or had not taken over as hts machme was not available and thus the old contractor was requested.
4. An afSdavit has been filed by Piyush Kumar Gupta stating that the enureworks ofM/sAnupEntetprisesweretak.ncarebyhimandnot byhis rather Om Prakash Gupta.
5. Considering the evidence on record, this Court finds thafno ground forgrantofanttcipato^^ bail to PiyushKumar Guptais made out, however ' asPiyushKumarGuptais theoverall in-chargeofthe worksconducted, this ourtdeems.tfittograntanticipatorybail toOmPrakash Gupta.
6. ^It is, therefore, directed that in the event ofarrest thepetitionerOm rakash Gupta be released on bail on his furnishing apersonal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- wi^h one surety of the like amount, subject to the satrsfactron ofthe Arresting Officer/SHO concerned further subject to the bail APPLN. 1886/2017Si 2196/2017 „ Page 3 of[4] 4- APRIL03,2018 'vn' BAIL APPLN. 1886/2017&2196/2017
I. F A: •J join the investigation as. and wh.n directed ^ th, Investigating Officr and in case ofcl^ange of residential address the same will beintimatedtothe Courtconce^^^ " ^ V Aw'-No.1886/2017:is dismissed and BailAppl. No/ is disposed of.. 1 ^^
8. Order dasti;:- i:, ' '. ~. 2196/2017 MUKTA GUPTA, J; Page 4 of[4]