- (1.) Rohtash Tayal, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.157 dated 21.6.2012 at Police Station Manesar, District Gurgaon for an offence punishable under sections 188, 336 of Indian Penal Code to which section 304-II IPC was added later on.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was not a case of even negligence on the part of the petitioner. He drew my attention in this regard to the reports of 22.6.2012 appearing in Indian Express and The Tribune. According to him, these reports, reproduced at page 7 of the petition, clearly show that the mouth of the bore-well was covered with a stone but as there was celebration of birthday of Maahi and a vehicle carrying goods could not cross that stone, the persons carrying the goods removed that stone and while playing, Maahi fell in the same. According to him, even the fact is that the petitioner is living in Delhi and his caretaker, named, Surender had been looking after the work of borewell and the petitioner is, therefore, not responsible for the happening in any way.
(3.) Believing for a moment that the mouth of the borewell was covered by a stone by the petitioner or his caretaker and that the same was removed by other persons who wanted to take the vehicle ahead of that place, which was not possible without removal of the stone and that they did not replace the stone, it is fact on the record that the borewell had struck a dead end because it had reached a rock and the further boring was not possible. If it was so then it was the duty of the petitioner and his caretaker, if he was there, that the borewell was filled back. This duty was more urgent because the bore was made in the passage and every body knows that the passages even in colonies are not well lit. The fact that the bore was left as such despite the fact that there was no possibility of further proceeding with the bore would show that the petitioner can be presumed to have the knowledge that such an incident could occur.;