In a significant judgment by the High Court of Gujarat, the case of liability concerning a boating incident involving the State of Gujarat and M/s. Kotia Projects has been adjudicated upon. The court’s decision in granting bail to the partners of M/s. Kotia Projects sets a precedent on vicarious liability in such cases. This ruling carries implications for future legal proceedings in similar matters. Let’s delve into the details of this crucial legal development.
Facts
- Learned Special Public Prosecutor waived service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent – State of Gujarat.
- Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Dhonde waived service of notice of Rule on behalf of the victims.
- None of the Applicants have participated or signed the Boating Agreement between VMC and M/s. Kotia Projects.
- The Applicants were non-acting partners and not responsible for day-to-day affairs of the firm.
- M/s. Kotia Projects subcontracted the maintenance of boating activity to M/s. Tristar Enterprise as they lacked the technical knowhow.
- M/s. Tristar Enterprise was liable for safety equipment and ensuring safety of boating participants as per the subcontract agreement.
- The Applicants had a 5% profit share and were inducted as partners in 2018.
- Partnership deed defined responsibilities of partners in firm administration.
Arguments
- The Applicants, being partners of the firm, did not ensure compliance with safety guidelines for the boating activity.
- Vicarious liability is irrelevant in criminal jurisprudence.
- Insufficient life jackets were available, which were not provided to children and Teachers during the boating activity.
- The Applicants were not named as Sleeping Partners in the Partnership Deed, indicating active involvement in the firm.
- The responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm fell on all partners, including the present Applicants.
- The Applicants are mainly housewives and one is a Dentist, with no prior criminal record or flight risk.
- Opposing arguments suggest the Applicants could be charged under Section 304A rather than Section 304 of IPC.
- The violation of safety guidelines for boating by the M/s. Kotia Projects led to the unfortunate incident.
- The Applicants were allegedly implicated based on vicarious liability.
- The agreement did not permit sub-contracting for boating, which was violated by M/s. Kotia Projects.
- Overloading of boats and lack of functional CCTV cameras were contributing factors to the incident.
- Presence of sufficient life jackets and the cause of the incident being boat overloading were highlighted.
- The arguments of the Special Public Prosecutor were reiterated regarding the vicarious liability of the present Applicants as partners of M/s. Kotia Projects.
- Prosecution contended that the present Applicants, being partners of the firm, were responsible and liable for the acts of the partnership firm under the principle of vicarious liability.
- It was emphasized that the order passed in the present Applications would influence decisions in similar cases, urging the Court to be vigilant in dealing with bail applications in such matters.
- The counsel requested for dismissal of the present Applications and cited specific judgments to support the arguments.
- The counsel highlighted the impact on small children in the alleged incident, emphasizing the severity of the case.
- The investigation in the case is completed, and a charge sheet has been filed, indicating the progress in legal proceedings.
- The lack of demarcation regarding the liabilities of the partners in the partnership firm led to the direct responsibility of the present Applicants for the firm’s actions.
Analysis
- The Court refrains from making any observations on vicarious liability or offense under Section 304 of IPC as these will be vital points in the trial.
- No evidence of direct involvement of present Applicants or their signing of relevant agreements for the boating activity.
- No indication that present Applicants were part of decision-making regarding the boating activity.
- All the Applicants are females and some have been in custody since 29.1.2024 while others since 15.2.2024.
- Considering the above factors, the Court is leaning towards allowing the present Applications.
- The present Applicants were partners in M/s. Kotia Projects with 5% share in profits.
- Factors considered by the Court include prima facie case, presence of accused at trial, and risk of tampering with witnesses.
- Arguments made regarding the unlikelihood of the accused fleeing.
- Numerous authorities cited on the aspect of vicarious liability of present Applicants.
- Section 209 CrPC does not mandate ‘reason to believe’ in order to summon an accused person
- Interpretation of ‘reason to believe’ in summoning an accused person under Section 209 CrPC is arbitrary and unreasonable
- No inflexible rule or guideline can be laid down for what constitutes ‘reason to believe’ as it depends on facts and circumstances of each case
Decision
- The Court reviewed the FIR, police papers, and earlier order disallowing bail at the initial stage by the learned Sessions Judge.
- The Applicants are granted bail upon execution of a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount.
- Conditions of bail include not influencing witnesses, maintaining law and order, providing address details, filing an affidavit of immovable properties, and not leaving India without court permission.
- The Trial Court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations in this order during the trial.
- The application for bail is allowed after consideration of the facts, allegations, and role attributed to the Applicants.
- The Applicants must submit an affidavit if they do not possess a passport and surrender any passport to the Trial Court within a week.
- The Applicants must provide contact numbers and those of the sureties to the Trial Court.
- The Authorities can release the Applicants if they are not required for any other offense currently.
- The Trial Court can take appropriate action if any of the bail conditions are breached.
- The rule is made absolute, and direct service is permitted.
- The Applicants are being implicated in the offense based on the principle of vicarious liability.
- The Applicants have been in custody since 29.01.2024 and 15.02.2024.
Case Title: TEJAL ASHISHKUMAR DOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/6930/2024
