7-REVN-177-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 177 OF 2026 Dharmesh Sundarji Shah ...Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Mr.P.K. Sanghrajka i/b Rajesh Sawant and Associates, for the Applicant. Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State. Mr.Vilas Jadhav, PI, Mumbai. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : . The challenge in this Application is to the impugned order dated 21st January 2026 passed below Exhibit-3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwandi in Sessions Case No.61 of 2025, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the Discharge Application of the Applicant. 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 19th August 2021, construction work of potmala was going at Pelltech Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. At the relevant time, a beam suddenly collapsed and seven workers got injured in the said incident. Out of seven injured workers, two died while undergoing treatment. 3. It is alleged that the Applicant was one of the Directors of the said company and he had given contract for the construction to an NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.08 11:30:49 +0530 7-REVN-177-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble inexperienced contractor, Accused No.1-Mr.Rajendra Patil of M/s.Shree Sai Samarth Enterprises, who further entrusted subcontractor, Accused no.2- Mr.Shankar Jadhav to carry out the construction work. 4. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The Applicant was one of the Directors of the company, where the incident occurred. The Applicant had given contract to Accused No.1 who had further given a sub-contract to Accused No.2 to carry out the construction work of M/s.Pelltech Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the construction work was being carried out. At the time of incident, the Applicant was not present. The incident happened due to the negligence of the Accused Nos.1 and 2. The Applicant has no concern at all with the said incident. However, these facts have not been considered by learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel further submitted that the Applicant cannot held liable for the act done by Accused Nos.1 and 2 and requested to allow the Application. 5. It is contention of the learned APP that the incident happened due to sole negligence of the Applicant, as the Applicant had given the contract to Accused Nos.1 and 2 without verifying their experience. Two persons have died in the said accident and five persons have been injured. As the Applicant was one of the Directors of the company, where incident 7-REVN-177-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble occurred and he had given contract to the Accused Nos.1 and 2. There is prima facie case against the Applicant to go on with the trial. The defense can be considered at the time of the trial. The learned Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the Application. 6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. 7. Admittedly, the construction work was being carried out by Accused Nos.1 and 2. The Applicant was one of the Directors of the company, where incident occurred. The Applicant had given contract of the construction to Accused Nos.1 and 2. The question that remains now is whether the Applicant can be held liable for the act of Accused Nos.1 and 2. 8. In my view, the construction was partly completed and incident happened suddenly. The Applicant had given contract to Accused No.1. Thereafter, Accused No.1 sub contracted it to the Accused No.2. So Applicant had no direct role in the said incident nor can he be held liable for act of Accused Nos.1 and 2. Except for giving the contract for construction to Accused No.1, there are no other allegations against the Applicant. As observed earlier, for the act of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, the Applicant cannot be held liable and I pass following order. Page 3 of 4 7-REVN-177-2026 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble ORDER (i) The Revision Application is allowed. (ii) The order dated 21st January 2026 passed below Exhibit-3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwandi in Sessions Case No.61 of 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The Applicant is discharged from Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC in Sessions Case No.61 of 2025 (iv) All pending Applications are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)