D.G.R.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) BOTH anticipatory bail applications are heard together as both arise out of the same case.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State in both the applications. Sri R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in A.B.A. No. 1983 of 2008 explains that the present case against the petitioners is totally misconceived and as a matter of fact, the petitioners are made accused only because of the fact that they are the contractors to whom the road construction work was allotted by way of tender. The petitioners after having, obtained the work contract, had given the same on sub -contract to other persons namely Satendra Yadav and Manoj Kumar Singh, the petitioners of A.B.A. No. 1387 of 2008. It is further explained that the work of construction of the road was supposed to be carried out by filling Morum Soil and supply of Morum Soil for the road construction work was entrusted to the co -accused Rejendra Yadav. As has been revealed in course of investigation from the evidences collected, none of the present petitioners of either of the present anticipatory bail applications, were in fact present at the place from where the Morum Soil were being extracted for the purpose of supply. On the other hand the sub -contractors above named were only supervising the construction work and therefore, they cannot be made liable or responsible for the excavation of the Morum Soil from the place where the soil caved and resulted in death of a labour who in fact was engaged by the supplier of the Morum Soil.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State on the other hand while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail invites attention to certain paragraphs of the case diary and submits that from the statement of witnesses as recorded in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the case diary would indicate that the A petitioner Satendra Yadav (of A.B.A. No J 1387 of 2008) was the person who along with others, used to go to the excavation site for excavating the Morum Soil.;