Neglect of mandatory excavation safety protocols justifies bail denial for culpable homicide under BNS.

On February 6, 2026, a motorcyclist died after falling into a 14-foot deep, unprotected pit dug by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) for sewage work in Janakpuri

Following investigation, an FIR was registered under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicant, Himanshu Gupta, a director of the joint venture executing the project, was arrested on March 10, 2026, after his anticipatory bail was rejected

The applicant sought regular bail, contending he was a "suspended director" due to NCLT proceedings initiated in July 2025 and that the work had been sub-contracted to a third party

The State opposed the bail, citing call records showing the applicant was informed of the accident shortly after it occurred but failed to inform the police or seek medical aid, instead allegedly attempting to cover up the lapses at the site

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of being a suspended director under NCLT proceedings with no control over company affairs

2. Whether the applicant can claim parity with co-accused Kavish Gupta, who received interim protection from the Supreme Court

3. Whether the lack of safety measures and post-incident conduct (failure to assist the victim) warrants the denial of bail

The court primarily applied Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder

It relied on established bail jurisprudence that balances individual liberty with societal interest

The court invoked the principle of "Constitutional obligation of the State" and the corresponding duty of care for contractors performing public works, where a gross disregard for mandatory safety precautions in high-risk excavations implies knowledge of the probability of death or injury

The court rejected the applicant’s argument regarding his suspended status, noting that evidence showed he continued to correspond with the DJB and provide instructions for day-to-day operations long after the NCLT moratorium

The court emphasized that the primary contractor was duty-bound to ensure safety arrangements, which were entirely absent at the 14-foot deep pit

Regarding the applicant’s conduct, the court highlighted that despite receiving a WhatsApp call about the accident at 1:56 AM, the applicant neither informed the authorities nor arranged medical help, while CCTV footage suggested attempts to hurriedly place barricades post-incident to shield the contractors from liability

Parity with the co-accused was denied because the Supreme Court's order was merely interim and the applicant was the first point of contact after the accident, distinguishing his role

The court held that the applicant's role was distinct from the co-accused and that the active involvement in company affairs post-NCLT order undermined his defense

Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the regular bail application