### Anticipatory Bail Denied to Contractors Who Allegedly Abdicated Non-Delegable Safety Duties Resulting in Fatal Public Road Accidents Facts: Two directors of a company (KKSIL) sought anticipatory bail following the death of a motorcyclist who fell into an unguarded 14-foot-deep pit. Despite an NCLT suspension and a purported sub-contract, the directors remained in operational control. Investigation revealed the pit lacked mandatory barricades, blinkers, or signage required by the Delhi Jal Board contract and traffic police permissions. Post-accident, the accused allegedly attempted to cover the site with safety gear to suppress the lack of precautions rather than assisting the victim. Key Issues: 1. Whether suspended directors could be held liable for operational negligence during a moratorium period. 2. Whether the duty to ensure public safety at an excavation site is a non-delegable contractual and constitutional obligation. 3. Whether the conduct of the accused post-incident (failing to report and planting evidence) justified custodial interrogation. Court's Reasoning: 1. Non-Delegable Duty: The Court held that safety obligations—such as signage and barricading—are core project management functions that cannot be delegated to sub-contractors. The primary contractor remains "absolutely and solely responsible" for accidents. 2. Operational Control: Despite the NCLT order, CDR analysis and witness statements proved the applicants were actively managing day-to-day operations and coordinating with the sub-contractor. 3. Knowledge of Risk: Digging a deep pit on a busy road without safeguards reflects "knowledge of a high probability of human injury," potentially attracting Section 105 BNS (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder). 4. Post-Incident Conduct: The failure to provide medical aid and the hurried attempt to place barricades after the death indicated a reckless disregard for life and a need for custodial interrogation to prevent evidence tampering. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the applications, emphasizing that public contractors cannot treat human life as "collateral damage" by abdicating mandatory safety protocols.

The petitioners, Directors of M/s K.K. Spun India Limited (KKSIL), sought anticipatory bail following the registration of FIR No. 35/2026 under Sections 105, 238(b), 9(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

On February 6, 2026, a motorcycle rider died after falling into an unguarded 14-foot deep pit dug in the middle of a road in Janakpuri for sewer rectification work awarded by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to KKSIL.

Investigation revealed a complete lack of safety measures, such as barricades or caution boards, at the site.

CCTV footage showed workers attempting to cover the site only after the accident.

The petitioners argued they were suspended Directors due to an NCLT order dated July 11, 2025, and had subcontracted the work to a third party, thereby absolving them of liability.

Whether the suspension of Directors by the NCLT and the existence of a subcontracting agreement absolve the petitioners of criminal liability for gross negligence resulting in death.

Whether the petitioners’ conduct, including non-disclosure of insolvency proceedings and active management of company affairs post-suspension, warrants the denial of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 106 (causing death by negligence) of the BNS.

It relied on the "General Conditions of Contract" of the Delhi Jal Board, specifically Clauses 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 (prohibiting subcontracting of project management/monitoring without approval), Clause 23.0 (absolute responsibility of the contractor for accidents), and Clauses 3.11, 3.13.4, 3.23, and 28.0 (mandatory safety, lighting, and barricading protocols).

The Court further applied the principle that a contractor’s duty to ensure public safety on public roads is a non-delegable constitutional and contractual obligation.

The Court rejected the petitioners' defense of managerial suspension, noting that despite the NCLT order, the petitioners continued to correspond with the DJB, receive work orders, and exercise day-to-day operational control.

CDR analysis confirmed the petitioners were in active contact with the onsite sub-contractor immediately after the accident.

The Court found that the sub-contract was executed four months before the primary contract was even awarded, suggesting a sham or unauthorized delegation.

It was observed that the excavation was done in daylight in violation of the "night-only" traffic police permission and without mandatory safety equipment, creating an "inevitable" danger to life.

The Court reasoned that the post-incident conduct—attempting to fix signage rather than providing medical aid to the victim—indicated a "reckless disregard for human life" and knowledge of the high probability of death.

It held that the petitioners could not shirk responsibility through a "blame game" or by citing CIRP proceedings when they remained the de facto controllers of the work.

The Court concluded that the excavation of a deep pit on a busy road without safeguards constitutes more than mere negligence; it reflects knowledge of potential fatality.

Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary to investigate the suspicious subcontracting timeline and the potential tampering of evidence/witnesses, particularly given that Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) had already been issued.