Main accused in Bawanafire case granted bail

A Delhi court on Thursday granted bail to Manoj Jain, the main accused in the Bawana fire case. The incident killed 17 persons on January 20 this year.

Mr. Jain and Lalit Goyal were owners of the factory where the fire had broken out. Mr. Goyal is still in judicial custody.

‘On ground of parity’

Granting bail to Mr. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar said, “Other co-accused except Lalit Goyal are on bail, hence at this stage, on the ground of parity, accused Manoj Jain is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount...”

The Judge also directed the accused to appear on each hearing and not to leave the country without prior permission of the court. He was also asked to deposit his passport, if any, within one week of his release.

Arguing for bail, counsel for accused Pradeep Rana submitted that he was no longer required for any further custodial interrogation. He further submitted that co-accused Ashish Jain had already been granted bail, and on the ground of parity, his client was also entitled to be released on bail.

Opposing the plea, the prosecutor argued that the charge sheet had been filed for serious offences and the matter was at the initial state.

The Delhi Police Crime Branch had in March filed the charge sheet against the seven accused in the case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Explosive Act, Poison Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.

The seven persons chargesheeted are Mr. Jain, Mr. Goyal, Surjeeet Goyal, Girish Rathore, Sangeeta Vijay Yadav, Uma Mittal and Brij Bhushan Sood.

The police have cited 84 witnesses in the charge sheet, to be examined in the trial to prove the charges against the accused.

Citing the statement of a woman who was injured in the fire, the charge sheet said the factory owners manufactured small Holi crackers with explosive material without following security norms. Referring to the statement of another injured person, the charge sheet said there was just one gate for both exit and entry at the factory and there was no fire-fighting equipment installed at the premises.

The witness further told the probe agency that a labourer was injured at the factory about four to five days before the fire and that the owners did not care for the safety of the labourers despite the workers complaining about it several times, the charge sheet alleged.