The Delhi High Court has refused anticipatory bail to contractors in a case involving the death of a young man who fell into an open excavation pit on a public road. The Court said public roads cannot become “death traps” and found no ground to grant pre-arrest protection.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that a lenient approach would weaken accountability in public works. The Court noted that contractors cannot evade responsibility when safety failures put lives at risk.
What the case is about
The case relates to an incident in Janakpuri. The prosecution says the deceased fell into a pit dug on a public road. The pit was allegedly around 20 feet deep. Investigators claim the site had no caution boards, no barricades, and no basic safety safeguards.
Police registered an FIR that includes Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, among other provisions.
Prosecution’s stand
The State opposed anticipatory bail. It argued that the contractors carried out excavation work in disregard of public safety. The prosecution also alleged unauthorised sub-contracting.
It said the duty to ensure safety at the worksite is non-delegable. It added that criminal liability cannot shift to downstream contractors.
Contractors’ defence
The applicants argued they were not present at the spot when the incident occurred. They sought protection from arrest on that basis.
The Court rejected this defence. It held that unauthorised delegation of public work does not wipe out obligations under the original contract.
Court on safety lapse and “knowledge” of harm
The Court said the material on record indicated more than mere negligence. It observed that digging a deep pit on a busy road without safeguards shows awareness of a high probability of serious injury or death.
The Court stressed that such acts can put the public at constant risk. It also underlined that contractors must follow tender conditions and permissions.
Post-incident conduct flagged
The High Court recorded serious concern about what happened after the accident. It noted allegations that no one arranged medical aid. The Court also noted claims that no emergency response was sought. It further observed allegations that the police was not informed promptly.
The Court said it felt disturbed by the conduct attributed to the applicants. It also referred to allegations that the accused tried to place signage and barricades after the incident, but did not assist the victim.
Why bail was denied
The Court said courts must consider the public impact of such incidents. It warned that letting contractors escape legal consequences can endanger citizens.
On these facts, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications.
Case title: Himanshu Gupta v. State
Appearances: Mr. Ajay Paul, Ms. Geetu Paul, Mr. Dayanand Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Chandra Tripathi for the petitioners; Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State; Ms. Neha Singh, Ms. Aastha Chaturvedi and Mr. Rahul Vats for the victim; Mr. Satender Dabas, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board.
