Bombay High Court has extended bail to Najir Shikalgar, a landowner implicated in a tragic incident that resulted in the death of 14 factory workers. The factory, operational on land leased by Shikalgar and his wife, became the site of one of the most heart-wrenching industrial accidents of recent times.
The Bombay High Court has extended bail to Najir Shikalgar, a landowner implicated in a tragic incident that resulted in the death of 14 factory workers. The workers perished in a devastating fire at a sparkling candle manufacturing unit located in Pune’s Pimpri-Chinchwad area, near Talwade village, last December. The factory, operational on land leased by Shikalgar and his wife, became the site of one of the most heart-wrenching industrial accidents of recent times.
Justice Sarang Kotwal, presiding over the bail plea, acknowledged the gravity of the incident but emphasized the necessity of granting bail to Shikalgar, particularly noting his advanced age of 71 years.
“Though the incident is very unfortunate in which 14 innocent people have lost their lives, Shikalgar, who is 71 years of age, need not be kept behind bars pending the trial when the trial is likely to take a very long time to commence,”
Justice Kotwal remarked, highlighting the prolonged nature of legal proceedings and the consideration given to the defendant’s age and health.
The court heard arguments from Advocate Ali Kaashif Khan, representing Shikalgar, who clarified the ownership of the property and the nature of the lease agreement. Khan pointed out that the land was actually in the name of Shikalgar’s wife, who had legally entered into a leave and licence agreement with Shivraj Enterprises, the entity behind the candle manufacturing operation. The agreement, initiated in June 2023 for a 36-month period, explicitly prohibited the conduct of any dangerous or illegal business on the premises. This detail assumes significance in light of the tragic fire that occurred just months after the agreement, on December 8.
Khan also brought attention to Shikalgar’s health issues, further bolstering the case for bail. On the contrary, Additional Public Prosecutor MH Mhatre contested the bail plea, citing employee statements that identified Shikalgar as a frequent visitor to the factory site, ostensibly in his capacity as the landlord. Mhatre argued that this indicated Shikalgar’s awareness of the hazardous operations and the insufficient safety measures in place.
Ultimately, Justice Kotwal’s decision to grant bail was informed by several critical factors: Shikalgar’s non-ownership of the premises, his lack of direct involvement in the factory’s operations, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the specific terms of the lease agreement that forbade dangerous activities. This nuanced ruling sheds light on the complexities of legal responsibility and ownership, especially in cases involving industrial accidents and public safety.
The Pune factory fire tragedy, which claimed the lives of 14 workers, has sparked a broader conversation about industrial safety standards and the legal obligations of property owners and operators. As the case proceeds, it remains a poignant reminder of the need for stringent safety protocols and the legal system’s role in adjudicating responsibility in such grievous incidents.
Also Read- Madras High Court Criticizes Advocates Assisting In Forceful Property Seizures (lawchakra.in)
