1

CASE ANALYSIS

RAJESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT

ON 1ST SEPTEMBER,2022

ABSTRACT

The Present judgement of Rajeshkumar Mahendrakumar Jain vs. State of Gujarat 1 shed
light on the interpretation of some provisions in the Indian Penal Code and the Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and ruled that anticipatory bail can be provided to the
accused and District Legal Services Authority can authorise to co-ordinate with the present
applicants as well as the legal heirs of the deceased to ensure that the amount of
compensation reaches in the right hands.

PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

Case No : Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10763 of 2022

Jurisdiction : Gujarat High Court

Case Decided on : 1st September, 2022

Judges : Justice Nikhil S. Kariel

: Indian Penal Code: S.308, S.304, S.114

Legal Provisions involved Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act: S.3A,
S.14

1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 10763 of 2022
2

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

 The facts of the case maintain that the Applicant, Rajeshkumar Mahendrakumar Jain, is
the director of the factory namely one “M/s Sagar Chem Food Industries in Halvad,
Gujarat. A wall in the factory had collapsed, leading to unfortunate death of 12 labourers
including children and whereas some labourers had also sustained injuries.
 The present applicants had become part of the said Industry, somewhere in the year 2012
and construction was already there when the present applicants had become a part of the
concerned industries, the wall in question was constructed per the approved plan.
Applicants reside at Rajasthan and are not managing the day-to-day affairs of the factory,
which is situated at Halvad. The applicants visit the factory premises occasionally for
business purpose, more particularly the applicants managing the Head Office of the
company in question at Rajasthan.
 The incident in question while being absolutely unfortunate, could not be attributed to any
negligence on part of the present applicants more particularly since it appears that the wall
had collapsed on account of the sacks of salt, being loaded, besides the wall being used as
a support. Learned Advocate would further submit that there is no material, as alleged in
the FIR or even found during course of investigation, on basis of which the present
applicants could be stated to have committed offences punishable under Sections
304 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.
 By way of this applicant the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR
being Part A C.R. No. 11189001220246 of 2022 registered with Halvad Police Station,
District: Morbi on 19.05.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 304, 308 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3A and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation ) Act, 1986 ( As amended in 2016)
3

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

The issue involved in the case is,

I. Whether the application filed by the Applicant for the Anticipatory Bail for the
offence above committed?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Contentions of the parties

Contentions of the Appellant (“Rameshkumar Mahendrakumar Jain”)

 It was the contention of the Appellant that the since the applicants both reside at
Rajasthan and are not managing the day-to-day affairs of the factory, which is situated at
Halvad. Learned Advocate would submit that both the applicants visit the factory
premises occasionally for business purpose, more particularly the applicants managing
the Head Office of the company in question at Rajasthan.
 That prima facie it appears that the present applicants, are not involved in
managing the day-to-day affairs of the factory at Halvad, where the unfortunate
incident had taken place and whereas it appears that the present applicants are
managing the Head Office of the factory at Rajasthan.
 It also appears that the entire factory building, had been constructed after
obtaining appropriate permissions and whereas learned Advocate having
submitted such permissions for the perusal of this Court. It also appears that the
persons who have in-charge of managing the day-to-day affairs of the factory,
have been arrested.
4

 It also prima facie appears that the incident in question was an accident and
whereas prima facie there is no material to show that there was any negligence on
part of the present applicants insofar as the incident in question is concerned.
 This Court has also considered the fact that the present applicants, have
voluntarily agreed to pay an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 6 lacs to the legal heir of
each of the deceased and an amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs to the injured victims.

Contentions of the Respondent (“State of Gujarat”)

 As against the same this application is vehemently objected to by learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit that the present applicants are managing the affairs of the company in
question cannot be absolved of their responsibilities, with regard to incident in
question merely on account of the fact that the applicants were not managing day to
day affairs of the factory premises at the site .
 Learned APP would further submit that the allegation in the FIR being that the wall in
question, had been constructed without any column or being supporting the same, the
incident had happened clearly on account of the negligence of the persons managing
the factory and whereas the same had resulted in the unfortunate death of around 12
persons. Learned APP would submit that having regard to such facts, custodial
interrogation of the present applicants would be necessary.
 Having regard to the same learned APP would request this Court not to entertain the
present application.

Observation by the High Court of Gujarat

 Having regard to the nature of the offence concerned and the role attributed to the
present applicants and considering the fact that the present applicants have no
antecedents of being involved in any criminal activity and prima facie coming to the
conclusion that the incident in question was an accident and also considering the
5

gesture on part of the present applicants of paying compensation, in the considered

opinion of this Court this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
 Having regard to the circumstances in question, and considering the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider
this application.
 In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of
applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being Part A C.R. No.
11189001220246 of 2022 registered with Halvad Police Station, District: Morbi, the
applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount, on the following
conditions:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation
whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 09. 09..2022 between 11:00
a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the
evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer
and the Court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of
the case or till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall
surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.
 In so far as the amount of compensation to be awarded, at the request of learned
Advocate, this Court directs the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority,
Morbi district, to co-ordinate with the present applicants as well as the legal heirs of
the deceased so as to ensure that the amount of compensation reaches in the right
hands.
 The present applicants, shall after appearing before the Investigating Officer shall
approach the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Morbi on 12.09.2022, and
6

whereas the the modalities of depositing the amount shall be discussed with the
Secretary of District Legal Services Authority, Morbi and whereas as undertaken by
the present applicants the entire amount i.e. Rs. 72 lacs + Rs. 5 lacs total Rs. 77 lacs
shall be deposited by the applicants as per the directions of the the Secretary, District
Legal Services Authority, Morbi and whereas the Secretary, District Legal Services
Authority, Morbi, in coordination with the present applicants and/or their
representatives shall ensure that the amount of ex-gratia payment shall be paid in the
ratio of Rs. 6 lacs to the next of kin of the deceased and Rs. 2.5 lacs to the injured
victims. It is further clarified, more particularly on account of the fact that the
deceased appear to include more than one person from the same family, that the
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Morbi shall in case of compensation to
the next of kin of the deceased ensure that the compensation is paid only to the heirs
specified in Class I and Class II(1) (i.e. father) of the Schedule to the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. In case there are no legal heirs in the said category as above,
then it would be open to the learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
Morbi to pass appropriate order to use the amount for the welfare of the labour class
in Morbi District. It is further clarified that if the proposed receipients of the
compensation in the category as specified above includes minors or are all minors
then the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Morbi shall ensure that
appropriate scheme is drawn to ensure that the amount is utilized for their day to day
expenses and their educational needs and some amount is received by the minors or
attaining majority.
 Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an
application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he
thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The
applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of
hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by
the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial
custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police
remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay
against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned
Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the
applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of
7

police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this
anticipatory bail order.
 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations
made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.

IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED

 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December,

20102

2
Criminal Appeal No.2271 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7615 of 2009