1997 (8) TMI 543 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code for offenses under Sections 304/436/427/337/338/285/287, IPC relating to a fire incident at Uphaar Cinema.
2. Petitioner's association with the cinema, liability for the incident, and arguments for bail.
3. Comparison with a previous case regarding anticipatory bail.
4. Connection of the petitioner with the renewal of the cinema license.
5. Legal principles regarding criminal liability for negligent acts.
6. Consideration of prima facie case and bail conditions.
7. Details of the fire incident and arguments from both sides.
8. Exercise of discretion under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code for granting bail.
9. Bail granted with specified conditions.
10. Petition disposed of.
11. Clarification on the observations made in the judgment.

Analysis:
1. The bail application was filed for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to a fire incident at Uphaar Cinema where 59 people lost their lives and 103 were injured during a screening of the film "Border" on 13.6.1997.

2. The petitioner, a former Director of the cinema, argued that he had resigned in 1988 and had minimal involvement in the cinema's operations after 1992. He contended that the fire's cause was the transformer maintained by the Delhi Vidyut Board, not his actions, and that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against him for the non-bailable offense under Section 304 Part-II, IPC.

3. A comparison was drawn with a previous case where anticipatory bail was refused based on the accused's knowledge of structural deviations that could lead to a building collapse, emphasizing the importance of proximate cause in determining criminal liability.

4. The petitioner's connection with the renewal of the cinema license was shown through a letter dated 3.3.1992, suggesting his involvement in licensing matters, although no other overt acts associating him with the cinema were proven during the investigation.

5. Legal principles regarding criminal liability for negligent acts were discussed, emphasizing the need for the act to be the proximate cause of the incident, which was argued not to be the case for the petitioner in the fire incident.

6. The court considered the existence of a prima facie case and the possibility of tampering with evidence while granting bail, highlighting the need for the accused's presence during trial and the risk of evidence tampering.

7. Details of the fire incident were presented, with arguments from both sides regarding the adequacy of safety measures, exit doors, and the role of the transformer in the casualties.

8. The court exercised its discretion under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code to grant bail to the petitioner, noting that the concerns raised by the CBI regarding the petitioner's presence for trial and evidence tampering could be addressed through imposed conditions.

9. Bail was granted to the petitioner with specified conditions, including furnishing surety and a personal bond, and restrictions on tampering with evidence and leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without court permission.

10. The petition was disposed of after granting bail to the petitioner, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.

11. A clarification was provided that the observations made in the judgment should not be construed as expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, maintaining neutrality on the underlying issues.