BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 1 of 23

$~85 & 86

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 25.02.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 765/2026

HIMANSHU GUPTA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ajay Paul, Ms. Geetu

Paul, Mr. Dayanand Sharma

and Mr. Kamlesh Chandra

Tripathi, Advocates

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,

APP for the State

Ms. Neha Singh, Ms. Aastha

Chaturvedi and Rahul Vats,

Advocates for victim.

Mr. Satender Dabas, Executive

Engineer, Delhi Jal Board.

(86)

+ BAIL APPLN. 766/2026

KAVISH GUPTA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ajay Paul, Ms. Geetu

Paul, Mr. Dayanand Sharma

and Mr. Kamlesh Chandra

Tripathi, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,

APP for the State

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 2 of 23

Ms. Neha Singh, Ms. Aastha

Chaturvedi and Rahul Vats,

Advocates for victim.

Mr. Satender Dabas, Executive

Engineer, Delhi Jal Board.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( Oral)

1. By way of these applications, the applicants seek grant of

anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 35/2026,

registered at Police Station Janakpuri, Delhi for the commission of

offence punishable under Sections 105/238(b)/9(2)/3(5) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereafter „BNS‟].

Factual Background

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the FIR in

question was registered on receipt of a PCR call on 06.02.2026,

informing that a motorcycle rider had fallen into a deep pit and was

in need of immediate assistance. Upon receipt of the said

information, police officials reached the spot, i.e. B-3B, near Andhra

School, Janakpuri, New Delhi, where they found a young boy along

with his motorcycle lying inside a pit measuring about 20 feet in

length, 13 feet in width and about 14 feet in depth, which had been

dug in the middle of the road. During the course of investigation, it

was revealed that the said pit had been dug by the Delhi Jal Board

[hereafter „DJB‟]. With the assistance of officials from the Fire

Brigade, the injured boy was taken out of the pit and shifted to Deen

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 3 of 23

Dayal Upadhyay Hospital; however, he was unfortunately declared

brought dead. Thereafter, the Crime Team and the FSL Team were

called at the spot, and investigation in the present case is being

carried out.

Submissions before the Court

3. The learned APP appearing for the State has argued that the

offence in question is of a serious nature. It is submitted that during

investigation, upon analysis of the CCTV footage, it was revealed

that no precautionary or safety measures, such as display of caution

boards, barricading or other warning mechanisms, had been put in

place by the contractor or the labourers at or around the excavation

site, which ultimately resulted in the death of a young motorcycle

rider. It is further submitted that the CCTV footage also shows that

immediately after the incident, one labourer, namely Yogesh, was

seen covering the excavation site by placing barricades and curtains

on the road where the incident had occurred. Investigation has further

revealed that the said labourer Yogesh had informed the sub-

contractor, Rajesh, about the incident at around 12:22 AM on

06.02.2026, i.e., within a few minutes of the incident. Thereafter, the

sub-contractor Rajesh is stated to have informed the present accused

Himanshu Gupta, brother of co-accused Kavish Gupta, through a

WhatsApp call at about 01:56 AM, following which they remained in

continuous contact with each other till the morning hours. It is further

contended that the DJB had issued a work order on 09.10.2025 for

rectification of peripheral sewer lines in the Janakpuri area to

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 4 of 23

KKSIL-O LINER JV, a joint venture having lead partner as M/s K.K.

Spun Indian Limited [hereafter „KKSIL‟], of which the present

applicants, i.e. Himanshu Gupta and Kavish Gupta, are Directors. As

per the terms of the contract, the contractor was responsible for

execution of the work, ensuring compliance with all safety norms and

precautionary measures, as well as for obtaining necessary

permissions and approvals from the concerned Government

Departments. It is further revealed that KKSIL had sub-contracted

the said work to co-accused Rajesh Kumar of M/s Trimurti

Associates.

4. The learned APP further submits that during investigation, it

was revealed that co-accused Rajesh Kumar had visited the spot after

the incident and, instead of taking steps to provide assistance to the

victim, was engaged in covering the pit by placing curtains and

barricades around it, despite the body of the deceased being inside

the pit, allegedly to prevent detection of the incident. It is further

argued by the learned APP for the State, as also by the learned

counsel for the complainant, that the applicant Himanshu Gupta was

in continuous contact with co-accused Rajesh immediately after the

incident, from the time of the WhatsApp call at 01:56 AM till the

morning hours. It is also submitted that the applicants, being

Directors of KKSIL, are in possession of material documents

pertaining to the contract, including permissions and approvals

required for execution of the work, and are personally liable in the

present case, particularly in view of the fact that KKSIL had executed

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 5 of 23

a sub-contract dated 26.06.2025 in favour of co-accused Rajesh, and

it is to be unearthed as to how the applicants had executed a sub-

contract in favour of the co-accused Rajesh about three to four

months prior to the work order for the project in question being

awarded to them by DJB. It is further contended that the General

Manager of KKSIL, during interrogation, disclosed that he used to

obtain instructions from applicant Himanshu Gupta regarding the

day-to-day operations of the company. It is also submitted that

despite repeated requests by the Investigating Officer (I.O.), the

applicants have failed to provide crucial information and documents

relating to the permissions which were required to be obtained by

KKSIL prior to commencement of the work. Therefore, it is prayed

that the present bail applications be rejected.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

applicants argues that the applicants were suspended Directors of

KKSIL during the relevant period and had no role whatsoever in the

day-to-day affairs or management of the company. Reliance is placed

upon the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the National Company

Law Tribunal [hereafter „NCLT‟], whereby the applicants stood

suspended. It is contended that the alleged incident pertains to a

period subsequent to their suspension and, therefore, in the absence

of any operational control or managerial authority, no vicarious

liability can be fastened upon them. It is further submitted that any

cooperation extended by the applicants to the Interim Resolution

Professional was strictly in compliance with their statutory obligation

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 6 of 23

under Section 19 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and

cannot be construed as exercise of control over the affairs of the

company during the moratorium period. The learned counsel further

submits that approval for execution of the works in question was

granted by the DJB on 09.10.2025, i.e., during the period of the

applicants‟ suspension. It is argued that prior to such approval, no

work could have lawfully commenced at the site, particularly during

the monsoon period, and thus no role can be attributed to the

applicants in respect of the works sanctioned thereafter. It is further

submitted that although a work order dated 27.06.2025 was issued to

M/s Trimurti Associates in anticipation of approval qua the work

order in question, since KKSIL had been earlier granted similar work

orders in past for different areas of Delhi, both the formal approval

and handing over of the site took place only after the applicants had

ceased to exercise any authority in the company. It is contended that,

in these circumstances, the unfortunate incident resulting in the death

of the motorcycle rider cannot be attributed to the applicants. It is

further argued that the essential ingredients of Section 105 of BNS

are not made out from the contents of the FIR and, at best, the

allegations may attract Section 106 BNS, which is a bailable offence.

With respect to the applicant Kavish Gupta, it is specifically

submitted that even as per the prosecution case, there are no

allegations of any communication or contact between him and co-

accused Rajesh either prior to or after the incident. On these grounds,

it is prayed that the applicants herein be granted anticipatory bail.

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 7 of 23

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the

applicants, complainant and the State, and has perused the material

on record.

Analysis & Findings

7. In the present case, the record reveals that the tender/contract

in question was awarded to KKSIL, wherein the General Conditions

of Contract, as set out in the Delhi Jal Board‟s Rehabilitation of the

Peripheral Sewer Lines in Delhi, govern the obligations of the

contractor. Clause 3 thereof deals with “Contractor & Contractor

Obligations”. Clause 3.2 specifically pertains to “Subcontracting”

and provides as under:

“3.2.1 A minimum of the following activities shall be performed by

the Contractor and shall not be subcontracted:

(i) Project Management

(ii) Planning, Scheduling, Monitoring

(iii) Quality Assurance

3.2.2 Prior approval of the Employer shall be required before

subcontracting any portion of the Contract. The approval shall be

based on the competency of the subcontractor to carry out a similar

kind of activity which is proposed to be subcontracted.”

8. A plain reading of the above clauses indicates that, firstly, even

where subcontracting is otherwise permissible, the core activities of

Project Management, Planning, Scheduling, Monitoring and Quality

Assurance cannot be subcontracted by the primary contractor.

Secondly, the contractor is not permitted to subcontract any portion

of the project work without prior approval of the DJB.

9. In this backdrop, the contention raised on behalf of the

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 8 of 23

applicants that execution of a sub-contract dated 27.06.2025 absolves

them of responsibility for ensuring safety measures at the project site

is liable to be dismissed on the reasons recorded in succeeding

paragraphs.

10. As noted above, clause 3.2.2 of the contract clearly stipulates

that no subcontracting could have been undertaken without prior

permission of DJB. As informed by the State, as well as by the

officials of DJB appearing before this Court, no such permission was

obtained in the present case. Even otherwise, assuming that a sub-

contract was entered into after obtaining permission from DJB, such

subcontracting could not have extended to core functions such as

monitoring, planning, management, and quality assurance of the

project, which were contractually required to be performed by the

contractor itself.

11. The investigation till now also reveals that KKSIL had

executed a sub-contract in favour of M/s Triumurti Associates of co-

accused Rajesh on 27.06.2025, i.e. nearly 3-4 to months prior to the

work in question being formally awarded by the DJB on 09.10.2025.

Prima facie, a sub-contract could not have been executed for a

contract which was not in existence as on the date of the alleged sub-

contract.

12. The record further reflects that two to three show-cause notices

were issued to KKSIL in relation to execution of the project work,

and that the project commenced in February 2026. This Court has

been informed that the excavation in question, namely the large pit at

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 9 of 23

the site, was dug during daytime on 05.02.2026, and that the incident

occurred at around midnight on 06.02.2026.

13. It is also noted by this Court that the applicants herein had

failed to inform DJB about the order passed by the NCLT. The DJB

has stated before this Court that the applicants were duty-bound to

disclose the same. The plea of the applicants that the NCLT order

was published in newspapers and was therefore presumed to be

within the knowledge of DJB does not, at this stage, finds favour

with this Court, particularly when the work order was issued in the

name of the company subsequent to the passing of order by the

NCLT. Even thereafter, when show-cause notices were issued to the

company in the year 2025-2026, no such disclosure was made to

DJB. It is also noteworthy that, as per the NCLT‟s order, the

applicants were required to assist in the day-to-day functioning of the

company.

14. The Status Report filed by the State also reflects, through CDR

analysis, that the applicant Himanshu was in regular contact with the

General Manager of the company, Mr. Nalin Kanth, who has stated

that he used to receive all instructions from the applicant Himanshu

regarding the day-to-day functioning of the company, which fact is

also corroborated from the CDR analysis.

15. Further, the replies given by the applicants during

interrogation, as reflected in the case diary, indicate that although

applicant Himanshu Gupta was the first person to receive a call from

the alleged sub-contractor informing him about the accident, he

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 10 of 23

neither informed the police nor took steps to arrange medical

assistance for the victim, stating instead that he presumed the sub-

contractor would have attended to the same. It is noted that it is

particularly shocking since the primary duty to ensure safety

measures at the project site rested upon the contractor and such

responsibility could neither have been delegated to a sub-contractor

nor could it have arisen even prior to execution of a valid contract

between the contractor and the employer. Rather, the record indicates

that the alleged sub-contractor was engaged and made to work at the

site in the absence of a subsisting primary contract, on the basis of

which a lawful sub-contract could have been entered into.

16. As regards the obligations of the contractor, this Court‟s

attention has been drawn to the relevant clauses of the General

Conditions of Contract, as set out in the DJB‟s Rehabilitation of the

Peripheral Sewer Lines in Delhi, which read as under:

“3.11 Sign Board/ Caution: The Contractor shall provide sign/

caution/ diversion board indicating complete name of work date of

start, date of completion. Contract Price, name of Employer, name of

the Executive Engineer with office address and telephone number,

name of the executive agency, at his own cost at the Site.

***

3.13.4 When the work is done near a place where there is risk of

danger or accident, all necessary equipments shall be provided and

kept ready for use, all necessary steps shall be taken for prompt

rescue of any person in danger and adequate provision shall be made

for prompt first aid treatment of all injuries likely to be sustained

during the course of the work.

3.23 Precautions during execution:

(i) The Contractor shall comply with instructions issued by the

Employer in respect of road maintenance and inter utility code of

conduct for excavating trenches across and along various roads and

other places in all respects, In case of non compliance the contractor

shall be liable to pay liquidated damages for various lapses.

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 11 of 23

***

ii) The contractor shall have to provide MS sheet barricading or as

provided in BOQ up to a minimum height of 2 meters above ground

level all around the Site of excavation and trenches as per direction

of Engineer-in-Charge. Such barricading must be provided before

taking up the excavation work and must remain in position till

complete filling back of excavated trenches and resurfacing work, if

any. The sheets must be painted in red & White stripes with

fluorescent paint.

***

23.0 Responsibility of damage to person or property.

23.1 The Contractor will be absolutely and solely responsible for any

accident that may occur during the progress on the work and for

injury or damage to the persons or property of any description

whatsoever which may be caused by or result from the execution of

the work. The Contractor shall at his own work.

***

28.0 Watch and ward

28.1 Adequate arrangements shall be made for lighting, chowkidars

etc. to safeguard against accidents & suitable passage ways shall be

provided wherever needed during the progress of the work for access

to the site/ buildings.

28.2 It shall be responsibility of the Contractor to watch & ward all

fittings and fixtures till such time the possession of the work is

handed over to Engineer-in-charge.”

17. The above-noted clauses of the Contract clearly demonstrate

that the responsibility for signage, barricading, monitoring and safety

during execution of the work was squarely upon the contractor.

Further, the contractor bears absolute and exclusive responsibility for

any accident, injury, or damage to persons or property arising during

the execution and progress of the work, and that such liability rests

entirely upon the contractor at his own risk and cost.

18. Even the work order dated 09.10.2025 issued in favour of

KKSIL stipulated as under:

“Accordingly, you are hereby instructed to commence the work at

the earliest and proceed as per the approved scope, specifications,

and guidelines.

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 12 of 23

Please ensure that all safety protocols and quality standards are

strictly adhered to during the execution of the work.”

19. The record further reflects that the DJB had sought permission

from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Traffic Police, for

excavation of the road, which permission was granted on 05.01.2026,

subject to strict compliance with several conditions, which are as

under:

“1. The agency shall make proper liaising with concerned ACP/T &

TI and inform them well in advance before starting the work.

2. The work should be done during Night hours from 2200 hrs to

0600 hrs only

3. Prior permission should be obtained from concerned agencies

4. Proper barricading/blinker/road safety measures should be

installed during the work.

5. There should be no complaint of traffic jam & nuisance from local

residents/general public due to this work.

6. It should not hamper the usual flow of traffic.

7. All necessary diversion warning, information and mandatory

boards shall be installed at appropriate places for the guidance

of general public and various road users regarding traffic

circulation etc.

8. Safe passage to pedestrians for safe crossing of road be

provided and shall deployed adequate number of marshals

round the clock to help the pedestrians till finalization of work.

9. Adequate barricading with warning electric beacon light,

signages at suitable location and florescent tapes on barricade

should be made during the work.

10. All safety measures should be adopted to ensure safety of all

road users.

11. No Malba/Material should be left on road after completion of

work, road will be restored back to normal position.

12. There should not be any blockage to general traffic, proper and

smooth way be given to the commuters.

13. Permission will be withdrawn in case of any VVIP movement or

any exigency.

14. No vehicles/gadgets shall be left unattended during the work.

15. If during the work, any damage caused to cables of traffic

signals/blinkers than the cost of repair/replacement shall be borne by

your office.

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 13 of 23

16. Any other direction given by area traffic officers from traffic

management point of view in the general interest of public shall be

complied with.

17. The organizer shall strictly follow the clauses mentioned in 198A

of MV Act and any violation of the same shall entail punishment

under the Section 198A MV Act.

Non-compliance of the above mentioned terms & conditions

may entail an termination/cancellation/withdrawal of the NOC.”

20. These conditions, inter alia, included prior coordination with

traffic authorities, execution of work only during night hours from

22:00 hours to 06:00 hours, installation of proper barricading,

blinkers and road safety measures, provision of diversion and

warning signages, ensuring safe passage for pedestrians with

deployment of adequate marshals, installation of electric beacon

lights and fluorescent tapes on barricades, and adoption of all safety

measures to ensure the safety of road users. The permission further

stipulated that non-compliance of the conditions could result in

cancellation or withdrawal of the NOC.

21. Thus, the permission itself clearly records that excavation

work could be undertaken only upon fulfilment of the stipulated

safety conditions, and only thereafter could the site have been

lawfully handed over for execution of work.

22. However, as admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

accused persons during the course of arguments, the excavation work

was carried out during day time on 05.02.2026, in contrast to

permission granted by the DCP concerned to carry out the work only

at night; whereas the accident took place at night, at a time when no

safety measures were in place at the site. It is further noted that no

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 14 of 23

complaint was lodged by any traffic police personnel either with the

DJB or with the Delhi Police regarding the existence of such a large

excavation pit without safety measures. A copy of the permission

letter dated 05.01.2026 had been sent to the concerned ACP of

Traffic Police and therefore, it was within their knowledge that only a

conditional permission had been granted by the concerned DCP in

the present case. Despite this, no authority, whether the Traffic

Police, the DJB, or the primary contractor i.e. KKSIL and its

directors i.e. applicants herein, appears to have discharged its

respective duty or ensured compliance with the stipulated conditions.

23. The applicants before this Court have taken mutually

inconsistent stands and contrary arguments. On the one hand, they

assert that a sub-contract was entered into in relation to a project

which was awarded to the company on 09.10.2025; on the other

hand, they seek to take advantage of the plea that they were

suspended Directors as of July 2025 pursuant to the NCLT order. The

record, however, shows that the applicants continued to receive

communications in the name of the company till the year 2026,

including show-cause notices and the award of the contract in

October 2025, without raising any objection or informing the DJB of

the NCLT proceedings. It is also noted that the applicants complied

with and acted upon the work order even after claiming to have been

suspended as Directors. The stand of the DJB is that it was never

informed about the NCLT order, and that it was the duty of the

company and its Directors to disclose the same. DJB has stated that

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 15 of 23

had such disclosure been made, the work order would either not have

been awarded or would have been addressed to the Resolution

Professional appointed by the NCLT, or appropriate modifications

would have been made in accordance with law.

24. Even otherwise, while the applicants contend that they were

suspended Directors of KKSIL and had no authority to act on behalf

of the company, the record reflects that the work was awarded to

KKSIL with the knowledge of the applicants; that a sub-contract was

issued by the applicants on behalf of KKSIL in June 2025, i.e. prior

to the award of the main contract in October 2025; that show-cause

notices were addressed to the company without any disclosure of

insolvency proceedings; that the sub-contractor engaged by the

applicants commenced work on 05.02.2026; and that the sub-

contractor contacted applicant Himanshu Gupta during the night

following the incident and remained in communication with him

thereafter. These acts, prima facie, appear to be in contrast with the

applicants‟ plea before this Court that they had no role or authority in

the affairs of the company after suspension. Moreover, as observed

above, the General Manager of the company has informed the I.O.

that during this period, in respect of general day-to-day operations of

the company, he was taking instructions from the applicants herein.

Furthermore, the record reveals that it was applicant Kavish Gupta

who entered into the Joint Venture Agreement on behalf of KKSIL

with O Liner, and that he was also the authorised signatory of

KKSIL–O Liner JV, which was assigned the contract for

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 16 of 23

rehabilitation of peripheral sewer lines. Thus, he was actively and

personally involved in execution of the said work in different parts of

Delhi, including the Janakpuri area.

25. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants has

handed over to this Court two letters exchanged between the

company and the Delhi Jal Board, to contend that even prior to

09.10.2025, there had been correspondence between them regarding

the proposed work at Janakpuri and, therefore, the sub-contracting of

work to M/s Trimurti Associates ought not to be doubted. However,

in this Court‟s view, two aspects merit consideration in this regard.

26. Firstly, the two letters placed before this Court are dated

25.07.2025 (written by KKSIL to DJB) and 04.09.2025 (written by

DJB to KKSIL), which reflect communication regarding the

proposed work for the Janakpuri area. Even so, these

communications are of July and September 2025, whereas the work

was allegedly sub-contracted to M/s Trimurti Associates, the firm of

co-accused Rajesh, in June 2025, i.e. prior to these communications.

Secondly, it is relevant to note that the aforesaid letters, dated

25.07.2025 and 04.09.2025, rather goes against the case advanced by

the applicants. This is so because the applicants have heavily relied

on the order of the NCLT dated 11.07.2025, and argued that

moratorium was applied and present applicants had been suspended

as directors of the company, but it clear from the perusal of the letters

that despite the same, the applicants herein, being Directors of

KKSIL and authorised signatories of KKSIL–O Liner JV, continued

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 17 of 23

to correspond with the DJB seeking award of sewerage work in the

Janakpuri area. These communications prima facie indicate that the

applicants were actively dealing with and executing matters relating

to the contract for sewage work during the relevant period.

27. It is thus evident from the contractual provisions that the

primary contractor (applicants herein) was duty-bound to ensure

adequate safety arrangements at the site, including availability of

necessary equipment for rescue in the event of a person or vehicle

falling into an excavation, provision of first-aid facilities, and prompt

intimation to the police and medical authorities. Regrettably, the

material on record indicates that none of these measures were in

place at the site at the relevant time.

28. The modus operandi of indulging in a blame game and

shifting responsibility from one person to another must now

come to an end. Neither the authorities nor the persons involved can

shirk responsibility and treat the present incident merely as an

accident. In this Court‟s view, it was a preventable incident, and the

negligence, as well as the knowledge of the likelihood of such an

incident taking place, stares hard from the facts of the case.

29. It is high time that the citizens of Delhi are no longer taken

for granted and that their lives are valued. Incidents such as the

present one cannot also be treated as only violations of the terms of a

contract; rather, the loss of an innocent young life, a member of the

community, must be acknowledged and mourned, and those

responsible must be brought to book. When a pit measuring about 20

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 18 of 23

feet in length, 13 feet in width and 14 feet in depth is dug in the

middle of a busy road, in utter violation of the work permit

conditions, tender conditions and traffic police permission conditions,

and when no blinkers, barricades or safety measures are provided and

no safety equipment mandated under the contract is deployed at the

site, would inevitably result in an untoward incident.

30. Moreover, there is no question of fastening vicarious liability

upon the applicants who are directors of the company merely on

account of their designation, as contended by the learned counsel; but

it is to be noted that the primary liability under the contract rests with

the company entrusted with execution of the work. This Court also

does not find the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants

acceptable, as every citizen of Delhi using public roads has a

legitimate expectation that such roads are safe, and that any

contractor undertaking excavation work has taken adequate safety

measures so that the common citizen does not fall prey to deep and

unguarded pits. This Court is also of the view that, as per the terms of

the contract/tender, the duty to ensure safety at the work site was

non-delegable in nature, particularly when it would be reasonably

foreseeable to the contractor that citizens and vehicles would

continue to pass through the area. Breach of such a mandatory duty

has resulted in the absence of even elementary safety measures,

culminating in the death of an innocent citizen. A message must also

go to the community that a person or entity awarded a public contract

undertakes it with responsibility, and if such responsibility is

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 19 of 23

abdicated, accountability under the law must follow.

31. Furthermore, as already noted, the very execution of the

alleged sub-contract dated 27.06.2025 itself requires investigation,

since it is claimed to have been entered into on the basis of a primary

contract which, on the date of the sub-contract, had not even been

awarded. The circumstances under which such a sub-contract was

executed, and the other connected aspects, can be examined only

through custodial interrogation of the accused persons.

32. While this Court remains mindful of the settled jurisprudence

governing grant of bail, it cannot ignore the societal interest involved

while passing orders in a case such as the present one. It is evident

from the material on record including the status report that the

alleged sub-contractor Rajesh had informed the present accused

Himanshu, being the primary contractor, about the incident at the

night itself; however, neither of them informed the police nor took

steps to arrange immediate medical assistance.

33. This Court is also of the view that public roads belong to

the people of the city, and in the case at hand, when the DJB, on

behalf of the State, awarded a contract involving excavation and

carrying out sewage work on a busy public road, it had not only

awarded a contract and work order but at the same time entrusted a

public duty upon the contractor to exercise care, caution and to

strictly adhere to the legitimately expected and mandatorily

prescribed safety precautions at the site of excavation.

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 20 of 23

34. Thus, it is both a constitutional obligation of the State and a

corresponding duty of the contractor entrusted with public work. In

the opinion of this Court, excavation of a pit as deep as 14 feet in

the centre of a busy public road without adequate safeguards, in

complete violation of the conditions of the work order, tender

and permissions granted, reveals not only negligence but also

knowledge of a high probability of human injury or death being

caused, such as in the present case.

35. What is most disturbing to note is that even after the

accident, no medical assistance was arranged, the police was not

informed, and no emergency response was sought, despite knowledge

that the victim lay in the pit struggling for life. What further shakes

the conscience of this Court is the apparent attempt by the

applicants and the alleged sub-contractor to shield themselves, as

disclosed by the CCTV footage and suggested by the CDR analysis,

by hurriedly placing signage and barricades at the spot after the

incident, and not helping the victim who had fallen in the pit. The

reckless disregard for human life, as reflected from the material on

record, suggests that for the accused persons, self-protection from the

hands of the law was more important for them, than saving a human

life.

36. If contractors engaged in public works on behalf of the State

are permitted to escape the rigour of law without fear of

consequences, it would endanger the lives of citizens at large. Courts,

even while considering bail applications, cannot remain oblivious to

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 21 of 23

their social duty and the impact their orders may have on societal

conscience. A lenient approach in the facts and circumstances of the

present case would send an alarming message of indifference towards

accountability of those who, prima facie, convert public roads into

death traps, reduce human life to collateral damage of contractual

work, and seek to evade responsibility thereafter.

37. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that a young

life has been lost due to gross human negligence and a complete

disregard of duty. To reiterate, the unauthorised delegation of public

work, by the contractor to a sub-contractor, does not absolve the

responsibility of the applicants herein flowing from the original

contract, nor does the plea of CIRP proceedings dilute their criminal

liability for the reasons already discussed. While CIRP proceedings

may deal with the financial distress of a company, they do not, in the

facts of the present case, absolve the company or those responsible of

their social and criminal liability. As already discussed above in

detail, in paragraph 25 to 28, the applicants were communicating

with the DJB regarding the contract/project in question even after

passing of order by NCLT and they never informed the DJB about

the order passed by the NCLT. Further, the conduct of the alleged

sub-contractor Rajesh, coupled with his continuous communication

with the present applicants after the incident in question had taken

place at night, also calls for analysis of the CDRs of all accused

persons and message exchanges between them, particularly in view

of the serious allegations that after the accident, and after informing

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 22 of 23

the applicants, there was a hurried attempt at post-incident damage

control by placing signage at the site, even while the victim was still

lying in the pit. This conduct also prima facie indicates that the

applicants herein and the co-accused were well aware of the

requirement of placing signage and safety measures at the spot and of

the danger posed by an unattended, deeply dug pit in the middle of a

public road.

38. This Court further notes that NBWs were issued against the

applicants on 09.02.2026. Considering that the investigation is still

ongoing and that the evidence in the present case is yet to be

recovered, there exists a reasonable apprehension, at this stage, that

grant of anticipatory bail may hamper effective investigation,

including recovery of material documents, and may also result in

tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses.

39. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, and in view of the

gravity of the alleged offence, coupled with the pre-incident and post-

incident conduct of the accused persons, does not persuade this Court

to grant the protection of anticipatory bail to the applicants herein.

More so, where a public work undertaken by a contractor is executed

in total disregard of human life, it must invite serious scrutiny

under the law.

40. Suffice it to say, the precious lives of the general public

cannot be left to the mercy of God while excavation work is carried

out on busy roads without ensuring basic safety measures.

BAIL APPLN. 765/2026 & connected matter Page 23 of 23

41. Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed.

42. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

43. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

FEBRUARY 25, 2025/A/ns

T.D./T.S.