The delicate intersection of industrial safety, child labour laws, and criminal culpability was recently highlighted in the Court of Session for Greater Bombay, where Criminal Bail Application No. 1055 of 2024 filed by Sushil Dharmadas Shilote was decisively rejected. Shilote, a wage labour contractor, was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 90 of 2024 at Shahu Nagar Police Station. The charges are severe, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code), as well as significant violations under Sections 75, 79, and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), alongside sections of the Maharashtra Lifts, Escalators and Moving Walks Act, 2017. The case revolves around the tragic death of a minor victim, Kunal Rajendra Chaudhari, while employed at a sweet production factory.
The Allegations and the Applicant’s Role
The prosecution alleged that Sushil Dharmadas Shilote, in association with co-accused Ramjan Babu Khan, supplied the minor victim to work at M/s. Punjabi Ghasitaram Halwai Pvt. Ltd. The child was employed on February 9 and 10, 2024. The tragic incident occurred on February 10, 2024, when the minor, while handling an unauthorized lift within the factory premises, sustained fatal injuries to his head and hand, succumbing to them on February 13, 2024. The FIR, which was registered over a month after the incident, detailed the breach of laws concerning child labour and the use of an uncertified lift.
The applicant’s defense counsel argued that there was no specific, direct role attributed to Shilote in the FIR regarding the child’s death. They contended that the child’s work was only packaging, which was befitting his age and did not inherently expose him to harm. The defense characterized the event as a “pure case of accident” caused by the victim’s own curiosity in trying to operate the lift without knowledge, thus arguing that Section 304(II) IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act were not attracted against him. It was also noted that co-accused Ramjan Khan (another labour contractor) and Kunal Bajaj (Managing Director of the factory) had their respective bail and anticipatory bail applications rejected by the same court.
Judicial Interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act
The core of the court’s analysis rested on the interpretation of Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. This section prescribes punishment for any person who, “having the actual charge of, or control over, a child,” commits certain acts of neglect or abuse, or who “causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering.”
The applicant’s advocate contended that Shilote did not have “actual charge of, or control over” the victim and therefore, Section 75 was inapplicable. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri S.B. Pawar, meticulously dissected the legal provision and explicitly held that the section applies to two distinct categories of persons. The first category includes those having actual charge or control. Critically, the second category encompasses persons who cause or procure the child to be exposed in a manner likely to cause mental or physical suffering.
The court found that the applicant, as a labour contractor who supplied the minor for work, was prima facie covered in the second category of persons. The very fact that the child met with a fatal accident while working in the factory, involving an unauthorized and dangerous lift, was sufficient to indicate that he was “exposed in a manner where element of risk was involved.” Therefore, the court dismissed the argument that Section 75 of the JJ Act was not attracted.
Given that the applicant’s role was deemed “exactly similar” to that of the co-accused Ramjan Khan, whose bail was already rejected, and considering the extremely serious nature of the offence—the death of a child labourer—the court concluded that the investigation was still in progress and the applicant could not be enlarged on bail at this stage. The rejection of bail sends a clear message about the criminal accountability of contractors and associates involved in the illegal exploitation of minors, particularly in environments that expose them to risk, upholding the stringent provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.