The Court of Session for Greater Bombay rejected the bail application of Kartik Praful Samant (Engineer) and Dipesh Prabhakar Mhatre (Supervisor), who were arrested in connection with the death of a six-year-old child that fell into an uncovered excavation ditch. The Court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, in an order dated May 8, 2024, ruled that the offense prima facie falls under Section 304 (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing the accused’s “knowledge” that their failure to take safety measures could result in a mishap, particularly since the site was adjacent to a busy railway platform.

Incident Details and Charges

The applicants were arrested on April 22, 2024, in connection with CR. No. 192/2024 registered with Vashi Railway Police Station.

• Incident: A six-year-old child, Master Ayush Shegaonkar, fell into a deep, water-logged cavity that had been dug up for the construction work managed by the applicants’ company, resulting in the child’s death.
• Accused Roles: Applicant No. 1, Kartik Praful Samant, is the Engineer, and Applicant No. 2, Dipesh Prabhakar Mhatre, is the Supervisor, both responsible for overseeing the construction work.
• Charge Invoked: The offense was registered under the grave charge of Section 304 IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder).

Applicants’ Contentions and Defense Arguments

The applicants, represented by Adv. Advani Sachwani and Heera a/w Adv. Rizwan Merchant, argued:

1. Wrong Section: They strongly disputed the applicability of Section 304 IPC, contending that, at most, the offense should have been registered under Section 304-A IPC (Causing Death by Negligence).
2. No Access Right: They claimed the incident spot was a restricted area with fencing and not open to the public.
3. Bail Requirements: They asserted they were innocent, had completed custodial interrogation, had no criminal antecedents, and were the sole earning members of their families. They also cited judgments where Section 304 IPC was deemed inapplicable in cases of medical negligence (Mahadev Prasad Kaushik) and rash and negligent driving (Sanjeev Nanda).

Court’s Finding on Applicability of Section 304 IPC

The prosecution, led by APP Mr. Iqbal Solkar, opposed bail, fearing the accused might flee, tamper with evidence, or threaten witnesses.

The Court thoroughly reviewed the evidence and the defense’s reliance on precedents, specifically distinguishing the present case from mere negligence:

• Knowledge of Danger: Investigation revealed that the ditches, dug adjacent to Platform No. 2 of Mankhurd railway station, were 9 to 10 feet deep and contained water. Crucially, the company knew local residents were daily using the plot of land where the work was ongoing.
• High Degree of Care: The Court held that because the ditches were adjacent to the railway platform, a “high degree of care was expected.”
• Omission Constitutes Knowledge: The Court found that the omission to take safety measures, despite directions from the company owner and knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, showed that “it was within the knowledge of the applicants that their act will result into such mishap.”
• Prima Facie Finding: The Judge concluded that the case involved the ingredient of “knowledge” and therefore, prima facie, the offense fell under Section 304 IPC, rendering the cited judgments inapplicable.

Final Rejection of Bail

Based on the seriousness of the offense and the prima facie finding of culpable knowledge, the Court rejected the bail application. The Judge stated that the investigation was still at a “primary stage,” the offense was “serious one,” and granting bail would “hamper the investigation” and create a “possibility of pressurizing the witnesses”.

Consequently, Criminal Bail Application No. 1154 of 2024 was rejected.