Nagpur blast case: Court refuses bail to SBL officials, flags major safety lapses

Presiding Judge Justice M.M. Nerlikar cited “gross recklessness” by the factory management, noting a systemic failure to adhere to the high safety standards required of an industrial explosives manufacturing plant. The court highlighted findings from the Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health (DISH) and the Chief Controller of Explosives, which revealed that highly volatile explosives were dangerously allowed to accumulate in the processing building rather than being safely shifted to an explosive magazine.

The judicial order detailed a list of statutory safety violations. The order mentions that investigations revealed that “not a single worker has been given training to work in such hazardous industry”.

Further life-threatening deficiencies included at the company were, failure to install a power-driven fire trailer pump, flameproof CCTV cameras were not installed in areas, absence of protective flange guards on pressurised pipelines carrying highly corrosive 98 per cent concentrated Nitric Acid, failure to provide an Occupational Health Centre, a suitably equipped ambulance, and required factory medical officers.

The order also lists that there were no qualified safety officers, no full time qualified medical officers; there was no qualified welfare officer in the factory.

The copy of the order, uploaded on April 20, also notes that medical examinations were conducted on only 183 out of the facility’s 809 workers and no training records were submitted to DISH office.

The order read, “Though repeated warnings were given then also there was no effective compliance.” DISH had previously inspected the factory on June 21, 2024, issuing a formal notice that outlined these exact safety contraventions. It further said, “Even after issuance of notice, they have not complied with the said safety provisions. Till today there are total six private complaints filed against the SBL Energy Limited, for non-compliance of the safety measures.”

Despite this notice, six subsequent private safety complaints, and a previous fire incident on April 26, 2025, that seriously injured two women, the company failed to take corrective action.

Defense attorneys argued that the senior management figures were not involved in the day-to-day functioning of the packaging unit. The court firmly rejected this argument, stating that as occupants of senior supervisory roles in a high-risk industry, it was their primary duty to oversee safety and ensure strict compliance with the law.