The Madras High Court held that bail may be granted in cases involving multiple statutory offences—including under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act—where the employment status of the deceased is disputed, the accused has no bad antecedents, and further investigation is warranted. The judgment sets precedent within the State, affirms established bail jurisprudence, and details practical bail conditions under the new legal regime.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL A(MD)/1057/2025 of T. Elavarasan Vs The state of Tamilnadu |
| CNR | HCMD011387712025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reasoned that when there is a dispute regarding whether the deceased were employed by the accused’s company or by the Corporation, and when the prosecution has not produced material to establish the company as employer, further investigation is warranted. Section 106(1) of BNS is bailable. While offences under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers Act are non-bailable by statute, and the SC/ST Act prescribes minimum punishment, lack of bad antecedents, period of incarceration, and disputed facts support bail. The appropriate course is to allow bail with detailed conditions to ensure cooperation and non-tampering. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The accused, Appellant/A2, site in-charge of a contracting company, was implicated in the death of two manual scavengers allegedly employed for manhole cleaning without safety measures. There was dispute about whether the deceased were employees of the company or Corporation. The accused was arrested on the day of the incident, whereas co-accused had anticipatory bail. Investigation is pending and employment relationship remains unproven. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be referenced in similar bail matters involving these statutory regimes |
| Follows | P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment explicitly examines bail eligibility where employment status of the deceased vis-à-vis specific statutory offences (Manual Scavengers Act, SC/ST Act) is disputed.
- Clarifies that even where statutory provisions prescribe non-bailability, bail can be granted when key facts (like employee–employer relationship) are under investigation and the accused has no criminal antecedents.
- Comprehensive bail conditions are imposed, referencing Supreme Court guidance, including reporting requirements and consequences for breach or absconding.
- The Court’s approach can be cited for seeking bail in cases involving statutory offences with disputed responsibility and ongoing investigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The Court methodically considered the rival claims on whether the deceased were employees of the accused’s company or of the Corporation, noting that the prosecution failed to produce material conclusively establishing employment. It found that due to this factual dispute, further investigation was necessary.
- Section 106(1) BNS (causing death by negligence) is bailable.
- Section 9 of the Manual Scavengers Act is non-bailable, as per Section 22 of that Act.
- Section 3(1)(j) SC/ST Act prescribes a minimum term of six months.
Despite statutory non-bailability, the judge emphasised the absence of bad antecedents, the period of incarceration, and the incomplete investigation as justifying the grant of bail. Detailed bail conditions were imposed per Supreme Court precedent (P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala). The Court highlighted that breach of these conditions or abscondence would invite immediate penal consequences, including registration of an FIR under Section 229-A IPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The deceased were not employed by the contractor/appellant’s company, but were contract workers of the Corporation.
- The project was already completed and handed over by the company.
- The appellant was not present at the site; Corporation officials were allegedly responsible but lodged a complaint to shield themselves.
- The appellant is innocent and not connected with the incident.
Respondent (State):
- Two contract sanitation workers died due to asphyxiation while cleaning an underground sewer.
- The company manager (appellant) had the responsibility to ensure safety precautions, which was not done.
- Failure to follow prescribed safety protocols led to the deaths.
- The investigation is at an early stage and bail could prejudice it.
Respondent (Complainant – Corporation):
- Deceased were not employed by the Corporation, but were contract workers under the company.
- Compensation paid by Corporation as per statute; it reserves the right to recover the amount from the company.
- FIR lodged against those deemed responsible based on contemporaneous public agitation and legal requirements.
Factual Background
Two individuals, alleged to be manual scavengers, died while cleaning a manhole at a site for which the accused’s company had previously completed work and handed over to the Corporation. Their employment status was highly disputed between the parties. The accused was arrested on the day of the incident and remained in custody, while a co-accused had been granted interim protection. During preliminary proceedings and in counter affidavits, both sides advanced competing narratives regarding legal responsibility, necessitating further investigation prior to conclusion of culpability.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 106(1), BNS: Mirrors Section 304A IPC (death by negligent act)—classified as bailable.
- Sections 7 and 9, Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013: Section 7 prohibits hazardous cleaning of sewers; Section 9 prescribes penalties. Section 22 makes offences under this Act cognizable and non-bailable.
- Section 3(1)(j), SC/ST (PoA) Act: Punishes employing SC/ST persons for manual scavenging, with a minimum six month imprisonment.
The Court’s order carefully noted the classification of each offence and the statutory bar on bail, yet weighed this with case-specific facts for deciding on bail.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The order sets out specific, detailed bail conditions—daily police reporting, geographic restriction, and safeguards against witness tampering—mirroring Supreme Court guidance.
- Mandates biometric identification of sureties and provides that breach of conditions invites direct judicial remedy, as if imposed by trial court, ensuring speed and accountability.
- Directs fresh FIR in case of abscondence by the accused under Section 229-A IPC.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing principles of bail under statutory and special enactments, referencing established Supreme Court authority.