IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 427 of 2025 ------ Ranjot Singh, aged about 50 years, son of late Upkar Singh, Managing Director, residing at C/o Emdet Jamshedpur Private Limited, M-18-VII Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 24.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 6121 of 2017 registered under sections 92/96 (A) of the Factories Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the occupier, in terms of the provisions of the Factories Act, of the factory in the name and style of M/s. Emdet Jamshedpur Private Limited and during the investigation the following irregularities were found by the factory inspector :- i) the personal protective equipment were not made available; ii) arrangement of toilet and laboratory was not proper; iii) the documents regarding inspection of pressure whistles were not made available; iv) sufficient number of fire extinguishers were not found; v) no safety committee has been constituted; vi) no onsite emergency plan or hazardous control and management plan has been prepared; vii) the workmen deployed in hazardous process have not been examined by a recognized medial officer; viii) no creche facility in the factory was available; ix) the name of adult workman were not found displayed in the notice board prescribed in form-XI; x) the provision of Factories Act has not been displayed in the premises and the factory management has not submitted the annual return. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has adhered to the online emergency plan and disaster control and management plan since the very inspection. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never been prosecuted under the penal provisions of the factory act earlier and there is no chance of the petitioner absconding. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 24 of the anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 50,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Seraikella, in connection with Complaint Case No. 6121 of 2017 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-