Mr. B.P. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Kumar Parihar and Ms. Shalvi Shukla v. STATE THROUGH SHO/IO, P.S. VIVEK VIHAR

BRIEF FACTS The genesis of the matter is that on 25.05.2024 at about 11:29 p.m. a fire broke-out at the Baby Care New Born Hospital, Vivek Vihar, Delhi („hospital‟), which hospital was run by the petitioner, The hospital provides neo-natal care for newborn children; and as a result of the fire, tragically, 07 infants lost their lives. Consequent thereupon FIR No. 350/2024 dated 26.05.2024 came to be registered under section 336/304-A/34 IPC at P.S.: Vivek Vihar, Delhi. Upon completing investigation, chargesheet has been filed in the matter under sections 304/308/34 IPC and section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 („JJ Act‟). The court is informed that charges are yet to be framed in the matter. The petitioner was arrested on 26.05.2024 and has been in judicial custody ever-since. The court has heard Mr. B.P. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Tarang Srivastva, learned APP This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 3850/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:04:38 appearing for the State; as well as Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the next-of-kin of some of the deceased infants. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

8. Mr. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following essential submissions in support of the bail plea :

9. That it is the undisputed position that 07 infants lost their lives in a fire that broke-out in the hospital on 25.05.2024 at about 11.29 p.m. The fire was reported, whereupon the fire-brigade, CATS Ambulance and Shaheed Bhagat Singh Sewa Dal Ambulance arrived at the spot; and 12 infants were rescued from the rear-side of the building and were admitted to the East Delhi Advance NICU, Vivek Vihar, Delhi; but unfortunately during the course of treatment, 07 of those infants died. 9.1. That the petitioner‟s contention is that the fire was accidental; that the hospital was equipped with the necessary fire-fighting equipment; and that the hospital staff who were available at that time made all efforts to save the infants, as a result of which 05 of the 12 infants who were admitted to the hospital at the relevant time, were saved, but unfortunately 07 of them died.

9.2. That though there is no doubt that the incident was extremely unfortunate and the loss of lives of 07 infants cannot simply be explained away, it must be appreciated that the Crime Scene Report dated 04.07.2024 prepared by the FSL team, which visited the spot on 27.05.2025, has concluded that on the basis of their observations, the seat of the fire appears to be the front portion of the terrace of the hospital; however the exact cause This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 3850/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:04:38 of the fire could not be ascertained; and the investigating officer was advised to collect, preserve and forward the exhibits collected at the spot in sealed condition to the FSL for further examination.

9.3. That it has also come on record in two Crime Scene Reports both dated 04.07.2024 that the terrace of the hospital was connected to the balcony of the 2nd Floor of the adjoining house, where semi-burnt cardboard, paper, metallic grill and other such articles were found lying; and electrical wires and switchboard of the front room of the adjoining building was also found in burnt condition. It is argued that these observations in the crime scene report raise a strong possibility that the fire might have arisen in the adjacent building and then spread to the hospital.

9.4. That furthermore, in his Report dated 13.06.2024 the Assistant Electrical Inspector, who was brought by the police on the scene has also concluded that on physical examination of the electrical installations in the hospital, no sign of any short- circuiting could be noticed; and again therefore, the exact cause of fire could not be ascertained.

9.5. That the hospital was duly registered with the Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi, which registration was granted after the authorities had inspected the building; and the registration certificate available with the hospital was valid till

31.03.2024. It is submitted that thereafter, the hospital had applied for renewal of its registration and for grant of This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 3850/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:04:38 certification for a 15-bed Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit („NICU‟), which was pending with the authorities as of the date of the incident but had not been rejected. The petitioner has stressed on this fact in response to the allegation that as per the existing registration, the hospital was entitled to admit only 05 infants for neo-natal care, but on point of fact, 12 infants had been admitted to the hospital at the relevant time.

9.6. That the hospital had sufficient number of qualified doctors to treat the infants; and that in any case, the death of the infants was not a result of any improper treatment or medical negligence at the hands of the doctors but was the unfortunate result of an accidental fire that broke-out in the hospital. 9.7. That, as has been recorded in the crime scene report, 07 fire extinguishers were found available in the hospital; and these were used by the hospital staff at the time the fire broke-out.

9.8. That by reason of the foregoing, it is evident that at worst, the offences that could be alleged against the petitioner are under sections 336/304-A IPC, which are both bailable offences and the maximum custodial sentence prescribed is for section 304- A IPC, which is imprisonment for 02 years.

9.9. That admittedly the petitioner was not present at the hospital at the time of the incident; and the circumstances in which the unfortunate deaths have occurred show that neither „intention‟ nor „knowledge‟ as required under section 304 IPC can be imputed to the petitioner; and the question of alleging offences under section 304/308 IPC against the petitioner does not arise. This is a digitally signed order. BAIL APPLN. 3850/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:04:38

9.10. That it has also been strenuously argued, that considering that the cause of the fire is not ascertainable; and the hospital was being run with due registration and all facilities and safety equipment was available on-site, the allegation even of the offence under section 304-A IPC is misconceived; and quite definitely, the substitution of section 304/308 IPC is wholly baseless since no element of mens-rea can be imputed to the petitioner.

10. In support of the bail plea, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following relevant judgements of the Supreme Court, which submissions may be briefly summarised as follows : 10.1. Sushil Ansal vs. State through CBI,1 which case arose from an incident of accidental fire in a cinema building, by reason of negligent acts of allowing the installation of a electrical transformer, and permitting various structural and fire safety deviations in the building, which led to the death of 59 persons, besides injuries to nearly 100 persons. It has been argued that in the said case, the accused persons were prosecuted and convicted only for the offence under section 304-A read with section 36 IPC and section 337/338 read with section 36 IPC. 10.2. Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.2 and Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation3, to submit that the grant of bail is the general rule and keeping a person in jail 1 2 3