1
Cri BA No.1055-2024
MHCC020066212024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1055 OF 2024
Sushil Dharmadas Shilote,
Age: 39 Years, Occ: Wage Labour.

]
] …Applicant.

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Shahu Nagar Police Station ]
Vide FIR No.90 of 2024.)
] …Respondent.
Advocate Taraq Sayyad for applicant /accused.
APP Sulbha Joshi for the State.
CORAM :
SHRI. S.B. PAWAR,
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R. No.58)
DATE
:
26th APRIL, 2024.
ORDER
The applicant who is arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.90 of 2024 registered with Shahu Nagar Police Station for offence
under sections 304(II), 188, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 75,
79, 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 and sections 32 and 33 of Maharashtra Lifts, Escalators and
Moving Walks Act, 2017, has filed the present application for bail under
section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2.

Prosecution claims that applicant is a labour contractor
working with co-accused Ramjan Babu Khan and he alongwith the said
2
Cri BA No.1055-2024
co-accused provided labourers to M/s. Punjabi Ghasitaram Halwai Pvt.
Ltd., Mahim (East) Mumbai, which is engaged in the business of
production of sweets, etc.

It is alleged that the applicant with co-
accused Ramjan Khan supplied minor victim Kunal Rajendra Chaudhari
for work in the said factory on 09.02.2024. The said victim worked in
the factory on 09.02.2024 and 10.02.2024. An unauthorized lift in the
premises of factory was erected without permission of Chief Engineer
(Electrical). On 10.02.2024 at about 2.00 to 2.15 p.m. while the minor
victim was handling the said lift, he sustained injury to his head and
hand and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries on 13.02.2024. Initially,
ADR No.15 of 2024 was registered under section 174 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, FIR came to be registered on 19.03.2024.
3.

The applicant contends that he is falsely implicated in the
case at the behest of the complainant. He has no connection with the
alleged offence. The FIR is silent on the specific role of the applicant in
the alleged employment of labour. There is delay of about one month in
registering FIR. The applicant is not liable for occurrence of the alleged
incident.

No case of section 304 II of IPC is made out against the
applicant. Applicant has no antecedents.
member of his family.

He is the only earning
He undertakes to abide by the conditions
imposed by the Court and on the above grounds seeks bail.
4.

Prosecution in its reply Exh.2 opposed bail on the grounds
that offence is serious as it relates to the death of child labour. There is
possibility that applicant may pressurize the witnesses if released on
bail and may repeat similar offence.

3
5.

Cri BA No.1055-2024
Learned Advocate for applicant vehemently submitted that
there is no specific role attributed to the applicant in the FIR.
Negligence can not be attributed to the applicant, neither he can be
held responsible for the accident.

The place where the child was
employed was not unsafe as the only work for which he was employed
was of packaging. There was no exposure of the child to any harm.
The nature of his employment did not include any element of putting
the child to harm or risk and the work was befitting his age. The victim,
out curiosity, tried to operate the lift without having its knowledge and
it was pure case of accident. The only role attributed to the applicant in
FIR is that he is associate of co-accused Ramjan Khan therefore, offence
under section 304 II of IPC as well as section 75 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is not attracted against the
applicant. Therefore, he urged to admit the applicant to bail on any
terms and conditions.
6.

Learned APP submits that in the statement of Kunal Bajaj
details of factory and the work carried out therein is given. The lift was
unauthorized and was dangerous for the use. The victim was asked to
carry packets through the said lift and therefore, he met with an
accident and lost his life. The applicant worked for commission. He is
equally liable for the offence which is very serious. Investigation is still
going on and as per her submissions, atleast till filing charge-sheet, the
applicant can not be enlarged on bail.
7.

I have carefully considered rival submissions of both the
sides. It is a matter of record that co-accused Ramjan Babu Khan had
filed Criminal Bail Application No.780 of 2024 and this Court rejected
the same vide order dated 30.03.2024. Another co-accused Kunal Bajaj,
4
Cri BA No.1055-2024
Managing Director of M/s. Punjabi Ghasitaram Halwai Pvt. Ltd., Mahim
(East) Mumbai, had also filed Anticipatory Bail Application No.658 of
2024 and it is rejected vide order dated 30.03.2024. Copies of both the
above orders are placed on record by learned Advocate for the
applicant.
8.

So far as the role of present applicant is concerned, it is
alleged in the FIR that he is an associate of co-accused Ramjan Khan
and both of them supplied labourers to the factory where the victim
Kunal Rajendra Choudhary, met with an accident while working on
10.02.2024. While rejecting the application for bail filed by Ramjan
Khan, this Court observed that the question whether offence under
section 304 II of IPC is attracted against the applicant may be debatable
but prima facie offence under section 75, proviso (3) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is attracted against
the said applicant. The role of the present applicant is exactly similar to
that of co-accused Ramjan Khan.
9.

Learned Advocate for the applicant by referring to section
75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
submitted that the said offence is also not attracted against the
applicant. As per his submissions, the said offence can attract only if
the person having the actual charge of, or control over, a child commits
acts mentioned in section 75. The applicant was neither having the
actual charge of nor he was having the control over the victim child. He
further submitted that nature of employment of the victim did not
include any element of putting the child in harm or at risk. Therefore,
as per his submissions, the offence under section 75 of the Juvenile
5
Cri BA No.1055-2024
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, his no application
against the applicant.
10.

Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 provides that whoever, having the actual charge of,
or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully
neglects the child, or 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, shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with
fine of Rs.1 lakh or with both. Third proviso to above section provides
that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically
incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit
to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment of not less than three years but
which may extend upto ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five
lakhs rupees.
11.

Bare reading of the above provision shows that it applies to
two categories of persons. First category of persons are the persons
having actual charge of or control over a child. Second category of
persons include the persons who cause or procure the child to be
exposed in a manner likely to cause such a child unnecessary mental or
physical suffering. In the present case, applicant is prima facie covered
in the second category of persons. Moreover, the very fact that the child
met with accident and lost his life while he was at the work in the
factory indicates that he was exposed in a manner where element of risk
was involved. Therefore, the argument of learned Advocate for the
applicant that offence under section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
6
Cri BA No.1055-2024
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is not attracted can not be
accepted. The investigation is in progress. The offence is serious in
nature. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the applicant can not be
admitted to bail at this stage and application is liable to be rejected.
Hence, I pass following order:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.1055 of 2024 filed by the applicant
Sushil Dharmadas Shilote in connection with F.I.R. No.90 of 2024
registered with Shah Nagar Police Station for offence under sections
304(II), 188, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 75, 79, 87 of The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and
sections 32 and 33 of Maharashtra Lifts, Escalators and Moving Walks
Act, 2017, is rejected.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.1055 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

SACHIN
BALVANT
PAWAR
Date : 26/04/2024
Order Dictated on: 26/04/2024
Transcribed on : 26/04/2024
Checked on
: 29/04/2024
Signed on
: 29/04/2024
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
BALVANT
PAWAR
Date: 2024.04.29
15:34:35 +0530
(S.B. PAWAR)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
29.04.2024
Upload Time
3.32 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court SHRI. S.B. PAWAR (CR 58)
Room No.)
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
7
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of 26.04.2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 29.04.2024
P.O. on
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 29.04.2024
on
Cri BA No.1055-2024