S.Pandiyan v. The State Rep. By Its

Crl. O.P. No.22218 / of 2024 P. DHANABAL.J., The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 288, 125(a), 105 of B.N.S. Act and Section 9(B)(1)(a) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 in connection with the Cr. No.268 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant along with deceased Karnan, Kumar and Lakshmanan were working in the petitioner's fireworks factory, that on 24.08.2024, at 1.00 p.m., while Karnan was working without any safety measures, heat generated during the work, caused a fire and led to an explosion and the said Karnan died on spot and the Kumar and lakshmanan sustained fire injuries and the defacto complainant sustained injury in his back head. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner under Sections 288, 125(a), 105 of B.N.S. Act and Section 9(B)(1)(a) of the Indian Explosives Act alleging that without any safety measurements, the petitioner run a fire factory and thereby, there was a fire accident on 24.08.2024 and one person died and three persons sustained injuries, that in fact the petitioner is a license holder and all the safety precautions were taken by the petitioner, but however, beyond his control, the accident had

happened and he already paid the compensation amount to the injured and hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the offences are grave in nature, that the petitioner without taking any precautionary measurements, run a fire factory and the investigation is at initial stage. Hence he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the gravity of offences and considering the fact that investigation is at initial stage, I am declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. 25.09.2024 mjs P.DHANABAL,J mjs To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kuthalam Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

CRL O.P. No.22218 of 2024 25.09.2024