High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 29.05.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMACrl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 2025& Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.6664 & 6665 of 2025A.Rajesh ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8698 of 2025/Accused No.2K.Subburaj...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8697 of 2025/Accused No.2 Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by,The Inspector of Police,M.Pudupatti Police Station,Virudhunagar District.(Crime No.108 of 2025)...RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483(1)(b) of BNS, 2023, tomodify the onerous condition No.1 imposed upon the petitioners in Crl.M.P.Nos.1536& 1537 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Court, VirudhunagarDistrict at Srivilliputhu, dated 08.05.2025.In both petitions,For Petitioners: Mr.Ananda Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel for Mrs.R.VidhyaFor Respondent: Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaamazad Government Advocate (Crl. Side)****1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 2025COMMON ORDERThese petitions have been filed to modify the onerous condition No.1 imposedupon the petitioners in Crl.M.P.Nos.1536 & 1537 of 2025 on the file of the PrincipalDistrict & Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhu, dated 08.05.2025.2. According to the prosecution case, on 26.04.2025, at 10:40 AM, while theVillage Administrative Officer was working in his office, he received information thata fire accident had occurred at an unit of a fire factory located at Pudhupatti -Sivakasi Main Road within the limit of Nedunkulam Village. Immediately, theVillage Administrative Officer went to the scene of the accident and came to knowthat the accident occurred in Room No.14 of the factory, where the fancy firecrackerswere being made.3. In the said accident, four employees died, six employees sustained seriousinjuries and were immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. Immediately, acomplaint was made. As per the complaint, the petitioners and other accused did notprovide any safety equipment to the workers despite knowing that a major accidentcould occur due to a small mistake in the manufacturing room without proper safetyequipment. Hence, FIR has been registered against the petitioners and others inCrime No.108 of 2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 288, 125(a) and 105 ofBNS, 2023, read with Section 9(B)(1)(a) of Explosives Act, 1884.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 20254. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8697 of 2025, who is working as a Foremanand the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8698 of 2025, who is working as a Managerwere arrested on 26.04.2025 and remanded and confined in Sub Jail, VirudhunagarDistrict for 15 days.5. The petitioners made applications for bail before the Principal District &Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur in Crl.MP.Nos.1536 & 1537 of 2025. While hearing theapplications, the Court allowed the petitions with the condition, directing thepetitioners to pay Rs.10,00,000/- each, to the each of the deceased employee,Rs.5,00,000/- each, to the grievously injured employee and Rs.2,00,000/- each, to eachof the simple injured employees, i.e., a total additional compensation ofRs.55,00,000/- was ordered to be paid by the petitioners each. Against the saidorders, the present petitions are filed by stating that the condition imposed is onerousand tantamount to refusal of bail to the petitioners with the following among othergrounds.(i) The learned Judge mechanically imposed a condition to pay compensation ofRs.10,00,000/- each to the deceased employee and the same is liable to be modified.(ii) The learned Judge though appreciated that the petitioners are employees,mechanically imposed a condition to pay additional compensation of Rs.55,00,000/-which is not sustainable.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 2025(iii) The learned Judge failed to consider that bail is a right of an accused until itproved beyond a reasonable doubt before the Court of law that he is guilty of anoffence. Though the grant of bail is an exercise of judicial discretion by the Court,imposition of conditions should be fair based on sound judicial principles.(iv) As far as the deceased employees are concerned, the petitioners are notentitled to pay compensation because all the workers including the deceased andinjured persons are covered under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. (v) The learned Judge did not consider that the Commissioner of Labour oughtto sanction compensation to the workers only depending upon the loss of earningcapacity of the injured/employee. The above proviso is very well defined and theBail Court has no role in payment of compensation or enhancement of the same to thedeceased employee.(vi) As per Section 53 of the Employee State Insurance Act, 1948, there is a baragainst receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law, andit states that, an insured person or his dependents shall not be entitled to receive orrecover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person,any compensation or damages under the Workmen?s Compensation Act, 1923, or anyother law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injurysustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 20256. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the owner of thefactory, who has been arrayed as A1 was granted with anticipatory bail by this Courtwithout any condition. The learned counsel also quoted the following judgements tosupport his contention:- i) In MOTIRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 1978 AIR1594, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that imposition of harsh condition for grant of bailis against law, our bail system is not based on any cash system. If it so then poorpeople have to spend rest of their life in jail itself. ii) In SANDEEP JAIN VS NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHIreported in 2000 (2) SCC 66 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: "... We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by theMetropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused atthe FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs.2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If hehad paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay thatamount and In default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to makeup theamount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to paythe amount in the range of Rs.2 Lakhs?If the Cheques issued by his suretywere dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 2025suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies providedby law. Similarly if the court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the suretyas for his failure to raise fund for honouring the cheques issued by him, thecourt could have directed the appellant to substitute him another surety.But to keep him in prison for such long period, that too in a case where bailwould normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard butimproper. It must be remembered that the court has not even come to theconclusion that the allegation made in the FIR are true. That can be decidedonly when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police... " (iii) In SAGAYAM @ DEVASAGAYAM VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU reportedin 2017 (3) CTC 291 held that: "...20. Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 declaresthat 'everyone has the right of life, liberty and security of person'. Article21, Constitution of India 1950 proclaims that 'No one shall be deprived ofhis life or personal liberty except procedure established by law'. And,Article 6 of International covenant on civil and Political Rights, 1966declares that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (AIR1978 SC 597) held that any law, procedure depriving a person's life or6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 2025liberty, which is unjust, unreasonable and inequitable militates against theConstitutional mandate in Article 21 of Constitution of India. It is also inabridgement of human rights of accused persons. 22. Thus, directing a poor man to deposit Rs.25,000/-in each case is againstArticle 21, Constitution of India and Maneka Gandhi (Supra) principle andalso the said International Covenants, which have been ratified by ourCountry..." Therefore, he prayed that the onerous condition No.1 imposed upon the petitioners inCrl.M.P.Nos.1536 & 1537 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Court,Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhu, dated 08.05.2025 is liable to be modified.7. The learned counsel for the intervener, who is the son of one of the deceased,strongly objected to the petitions by stating that the accident occurred solely due tothe failure to provide proper safety precautions during the manufacturing process offancy crackers, which ultimately resulted in this fatal accident. The petitioners andthe factory owner have deliberately misled this Court and obtained anticipatory bailfor the factory owner under false pretext. The petitioners have failed to comply withthe condition, particularly ensuring fatal accident compensation and statutorybenefits to the victim and their family. By filing these petitions, the petitioners areattempting to circumvent the direction of this Court through the tactical misuse of the7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 2025process and therefore, if any leniency is shown to them, the same will amount to adenial of justice to the victim and their families.8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) admitted that the familymembers of the deceased employees received from the owner, namely A1 to the tuneof rupees Rs.5,00,000/- each towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- each towardsfuneral expenses. He also submitted with regard to the injured victims, the owner haspromised to pay a reasonable compensation.9. The petitioners are only the employees and the onerous liability to paycompensation to the victims, falls on the owner of the factory, as they only engagedthe workers in an inherently dangerous activities. The criminal charges are filedagainst the petitioners who are employees and if the case is proven, they will bepunished for not providing safety measures to the employees. But the same can bedecided only after the trial. The initial burden lies only upon the owner. As statedabove, we learn that the owner, A1, paid compensation to the deceased family.Further, at present in the initial stage, it cannot be decided who is responsible for theaccident. The compensation amount awarded is a huge amount, and if the petitionersfailed to pay the same, they could remain in jail for non-compliance. Therefore,condition No.1 imposed by the learned Trial Court needs modification.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 202510. As a result, I modify the condition only about payment of additionalcompensation ordered by the Trial Court as follows:(i) The petitioners each shall pay an additional compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the four families of the deceased victimseach; (ii) the petitioners each shall pay an additional compensation of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to one seriously injured person; and (iii) Thepetitioners each shall pay an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FiftyThousand only) to five simple injured persons each, directly to the victim.11. With these observations, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. sd/- 29/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. MBITO1 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,SIVAKASI.3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,DISTRICT JAIL, VIRUDHUNAGAR.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 20254 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,SUB JAIL, VIRUDHUNAGAR.5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,M.PUDUPATTI POLICE STATION,VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.6 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +2. CC to M/S.R. VIDHYA Advocate SR.No.31243 (F) DT.29/05/2025 ORDER INCrl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8698 & 8697 of 2025 Date :29/05/2025SA/SAR. /29.05.2025/10P/9CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 10/10