1 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION(ABA) NO.767 OF 2026 Marotrao s/o Sainuji Kowase and anr. ..vs.. State of Maharashtra AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION(ABA) NO.787 OF 2026 Smt Bhagyashree w/o Rohan Jakkanwar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.A. Naik, Senior Counsel, a/w Shri Madhur A. Deo, Advocate for the applicants. (ABA No.767/2026) Shri V.N. Morande, Advocate for the applicant (ABA No.787/2026) Shri N.R. Rode, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 09.09.2026. Heard. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.86 of 2026 registered with Dhanora Police Station, District Gadchiroli for the offences punishable under Sections 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘the 2015 Act,’) and Sections 106(1), 125(a), 125(b), 318(4), 336, 340 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicants have approached for pre-arrest protection. 2 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt 3. The F.I.R. came to be lodged on 12/08/2026 alleging that on 10/08/2026, several girl students residing in the Ashram School at Gadchiroli were sleeping in the hall after their studies, during which five students sustained snake bites. Unfortunately, three of the students succumbed to death during treatment, whereas, more than 20 girls are undergoing treatment. Based on these allegations the report was registered. During the course of investigation, applicants came to be arraigned as accused on account of negligence committed on their part. 4. The learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respective applicants submit that the offences levelled against the applicants are mostly bailable, except Section 75 of the 2015 Act, as can be gathered from the F.I.R. During the course of investigation, cognizable and non-bailable offences under Sections 318(4) and 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, came to be added, for which the maximum punishment prescribed is not more than seven years. Therefore, according to them, applicants are entitled to a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; however, till date no such notice has been issued. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, though an unfortunate incident occurred at the said Ashram School, however negligence cannot be attributed to the applicants as the unfortunate incident which occurred was beyond their control. 5. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the snake unfortunately entered the girls’ hostel at 3 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt midnight, resulting in snake bites to several students, due to which three girls succumbed to their injuries and died. Thereafter, several other girls complained of having suffered snake bites and were found vomiting. He submits that this was nothing but an unfortunate incident and the applicants cannot be said to have acted intentionally. In order to attract Section 75 of the 2015 Act of 2015, there must be an act of wilful negligence on the part of the applicants and, for attracting criminal liability, mens rea is required. According to him, the necessary ingredients are absent in the present case. He submits that, no doubt, three young girls have lost their lives, but the applicants cannot be blamed for their deaths. To buttress this submission, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2005) 6 SCC 1, particularly paragraphs 14 and 15. Therefore, he submits that, in the present case, there was neither any intention on the part of the applicants nor any gross negligence can be attributable to them, and hence, the applicants deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that, admittedly, the applicants are the President, Secretary and Superintendent of the said Ashram School. The said Ashram School has been admitted to 100% grant-in-aid, and substantial amounts running into lakhs of rupees have been released by the government to it from time to time to ensure that the girl students are provided with proper facilities and education, both in the school as well as in the hostel, as contemplated under the Ashram School Code. After the unfortunate incident 4 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt occured, an inspection of the said Ashram School was conducted, wherein it was found that the condition of the Ashram School and the hostel was precarious. Various deficiencies were noticed by the concerned officers during the inspection. He submits that the applicants are the persons responsible for the management and functioning of the Ashram School and, under such circumstances, it is their responsibility to run the institution in accordance with the Ashram School Code. He further submits that the photographs of the said School clearly reflect the negligence on the part of the applicants. Though substantial amounts running into lakhs of rupees have been granted to the said School, the photographs indicate that no adequate facilities have been provided to the students, which resulted in the unfortunate incident. Therefore, according to the learned A.P.P., this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, as custodial interrogation of the applicants would be necessary. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the application. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. Upon perusal of the case diary and the F.I.R., and having regard to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (supra), which is a landmark judgment on the law relating to negligence, the following undisputed facts emerge. The applicants in Criminal Application No.767/2026 are the President and Secretary of the Ashram School respectively, whereas, in Application No. 787/2026, the applicant, namely Smt. Bhagyashree Jakkanwar, is working as the Superintendent of the Grant-in-Aid Ashram School, 5 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt Japtlai. The learned Counsel for the concerned applicant contends that she was not present in the Ashram School at the relevant time, as she had submitted a leave application on the previous day. Be that as it may, availing leave on that day would not preclude the applicant from being held responsible as her role being Superintendent of the Ashram School is pivotal. 8. Admittedly, it appears that, except for Section 75 of the 2015 Act, all the offences levelled against the present applicants are bailable and non-cognizable. However, it also appears that, at a later point of time, Sections 318(4) and 336 of the BNS, 2023, were also invoked against the applicants, which are cognizable and non-bailable. What sections would be invoked is not an important issue; what is important is the contents of the F.I.R. Upon perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., it appears that, on 10/08/2026, five girls were bitten by a snake, out of whom unfortunately three young girls lost their lives. All these girls were from tribal areas. They had come to the said Ashram School with a ray of hope of receiving education; however, the applicants, by not providing the facilities contemplated under the Ashram School Code, have taken lives of these three young girls. Several other girl students are also undergoing treatment for suspected snake bites. Upon perusal of the investigation papers and the inspection reports, it appears that the Ashram School is in a precarious condition and that not a single facility necessary for the girls is available. Lakhs of rupees in grants have been received by the said School; however, where the amount has gone is a moot question. Upon perusal of the 6 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt photographs, the condition of the Ashram School appears to be very bad, which cannot be expressed in words. Photographs reveal that no facilities were provided. Outside the residential building, the grass is overgrown, ditches are filled with water, no bed, doors and windows are not maintained, etc. All these factors contribute to this incidents. It is further to be noted that the Ashram School is situated in a remote area; and therefore, a high degree of care and caution is expected. However, neither care nor caution seems to have been taken, showing a high degree of negligence. However, despite such conditions, the girl students there are pursuing their education. As was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that this ‘negligence’ cannot be termed as ‘gross negligence’, in my opinion, such a submission would be fallacious. It is nothing but more than gross negligence. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the case of Jacob Mathew (supra), has specifically observed in paragraphs 14, 15 and 17 as under: “14. In order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely imminent. The element of criminality is introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Lord Atkin in his speech in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1937 AC 576 stated: (All ER p. 556 C) “Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence, and a very high degree of negligence 7 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt is required to be proved before the felony is established.” Thus, a clear distinction exists between “simple lack of care” incurring civil liability and “very high degree of negligence” which is required in criminal cases. In Riddell v. Reid (1942) 2 ALL ER 161 (AC at p. 31) Lord Porter said in his speech - “A higher degree of negligence has always been demanded in order to establish a criminal offence than is sufficient to create civil liability.” 15. The fore-quoted statement of law in Andrews 1937 AC 576 has been noted with approval by this Court in Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30. The Supreme Court has dealt with and pointed out with reasons the distinction between negligence in civil law and in criminal law. Their Lordships have opined that there is a marked difference as to the effect of evidence viz. the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the Court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt. Where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment. … 17.In our opinion, the factor of grossness or degree does assume significance while drawing distinction in negligence actionable in tort and negligence punishable as a crime. To be latter, the negligence has to be gross or of a very high degree.” 8 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt 9. In fact, the aforesaid case relied upon by the applicants supports the case of the prosecution, as the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that, in order to constitute criminal negligence, the negligence must be of such a degree as to amount to taking a risk with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. The Hon’ble Court has further drawn a clear distinction between simple lack of care, which may give rise to civil liability, and a very high degree of negligence required to establish criminal liability. It has specifically observed that, where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not merely an error of judgment. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that the factor of grossness or degree assumes significance and that, to constitute criminal negligence, the negligence has to be gross or of a very high degree. 10. I have carefully considered the inspection reports for the years 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2024– 25, as well as the subsequent inspection report and the photographs placed on record. The inspection reports for the years 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2024– 25 indicate that the Ashram School was well maintained, the construction of the school building was proper, and basic amenities were being provided to the students. However, the subsequent inspection report and the photographs placed on record depict an entirely different situation and reveal several deficiencies in the functioning and 9 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt infrastructure of the said school. The following deficiencies, inter alia, have been noticed: (a) It was found that the requisite number of toilets and bathrooms were not available for the students, and the students were also not provided with adequate cupboards and a proper dining hall. (b) The CCTV system was not up to the prescribed standards. There was no adequate storage capacity or backup facility, and out of the nine CCTV cameras installed, only five were found to be functional. (c) The school building and its infrastructure were not constructed and maintained in accordance with the prescribed norms. There were either no windows or, wherever windows were provided, they were made of wooden sheets with gaps, and no mosquito nets were provided. (d) The kitchen did not have the requisite certification from the Food and Drug Administration or FSSAI. (e) No incinerator machines or sanitary napkin vending machines were provided for the adolescent girl students to facilitate the proper disposal of sanitary napkins. 11. The aforesaid deficiencies are not exhaustive, and several other shortcomings have also been noticed from the inspection report and the photographs placed on record. The material on record, therefore, clearly demonstrates a substantial deterioration in the condition of the school and the facilities being provided to the students. In my 10 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt opinion, the applicants, who were responsible for ensuring the proper maintenance and provision of basic facilities in the Ashram School, were grossly negligent in discharging their duties, resulting into the incident. 12. In the present case, having regard to the material collected during the investigation, including the inspection reports and the photographs depicting the condition of the Ashram School and the hostel, the negligence alleged against the applicants cannot, at this stage, be termed as a mere lack of care or an error of judgment. The circumstances prima facie indicates negligence of a gross and very high degree. The observations of the Supreme Court are self- speaking. Three lives have been lost, which in my opinion amounts to more than gross negligence on the part of the applicants, as they failed to provide the facilities required under the Ashram School Code. Many other girl students are presently receiving treatment for possible snake bites, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the applicants to argue that this cannot be termed as a criminal negligence. While certain minor deficiencies may be understood as mere negligence, a perusal of the inspection reports, photographs, and the FIR demonstrates gross negligence which, in my opinion, amounts to criminal negligence. 13. Furthermore, upon perusal of the inspection report of February 2026, it appears that the Ashram 11 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt School had all the requisite facilities. However, the findings recorded in the latest inspection report of August 2026, as well as the subsequent Government orders cancelling the recognition of the said school, directly contradict the findings recorded in the earlier inspection report. This clear contradiction prima facie indicates that the officers of the Department acted in collusion with the school management, thereby enabling the school management to siphon off government grants while failing to provide the basic facilities required for the students. The contradictory inspection reports also prima facie disclose the involvement of the concerned government officials in the said irregularities. It was incumbent upon the concerned officers, as persons entrusted with the duty of inspecting and supervising the functioning of the Ashram School, to possess the requisite knowledge, to remain alert to the deficiencies in the institution and to exercise the degree of care that an ordinarily competent officer would exercise in the discharge of such duties. The material on record, particularly the stark variance between the February 2026 inspection report and the subsequent inspection report, coupled with the cancellation of the recognition of the school, prima facie indicates that the concerned officers failed to meet the requisite standard expected of reasonably. Rather, the circumstances indicate that the deficiencies in the Ashram School were either overlooked or deliberately disregarded, despite the officers being under a bounden duty to identify and report such 12 16.18.aba.767.2026.787.2026.odt deficiencies. Therefore, at this stage, the material on record prima facie discloses not merely an error of judgment or ordinary lack of care, but a serious dereliction of the duties entrusted upon the concerned officers, which warrants a thorough investigation into their role and the alleged collusion with the management of the Ashram School. 14. This Court hopes and trusts that the Investigating Officer will conduct a thorough investigation and will not spare even the government officials who were allegedly acting in collusion with the management of the said Ashram School. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no case is made out for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. Hence, the applications are rejected. (M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 17:27:51