‘Public roads can’t be death traps’: Delhi High Court refuses pre-arrest bail to men accused of biker’s death in Janakpuri

High time, lives of citizens valued

• It is high time that the citizens of Delhi are no longer taken for granted and that their lives are valued.
• The loss of an innocent young life, a member of the community, must be acknowledged and mourned, and those responsible must be brought to book.
• The modus operandi of indulging in a blame game and shifting responsibility from one person to another must now come to an end.
• Neither the authorities nor the persons involved can shirk responsibility and treat the present incident merely as an accident.
• It was a preventable incident, and the negligence, as well as the knowledge of the likelihood of such an incident taking place, stares hard from the facts of the case.

• Incidents such as the present one cannot also be treated as only violations of the terms of a contract.
• When a pit measuring about 20 feet in length, 13 feet in width and 14 feet in depth is dug in the middle of a busy road, in utter violation of the work permit conditions, tender conditions and traffic police permission conditions, and when no blinkers, barricades or safety measures are provided and no safety equipment mandated under the contract is deployed at the site, would inevitably result in an untoward incident.

Disturbing, reckless disregard for human life

• What is most disturbing to note is that even after the accident, no medical assistance was arranged, the police were not informed, and no emergency response was sought, despite knowledge that the victim lay in the pit struggling for life.
• What further shakes the conscience of this court is the apparent attempt by the applicants and the alleged sub-contractor to shield themselves.

• This is disclosed by the CCTV footage and suggested by the CDR analysis, by hurriedly placing signage and barricades at the spot after the incident, and not helping the victim who had fallen in the pit.
• The reckless disregard for human life, as reflected from the material on record, suggests that for the accused persons, self-protection from the hands of the law was more important for them, than saving a human life.

Roads belong to people

• Public roads belong to the people of the city.
• When the Delhi Jal Board, on behalf of the state, awarded a contract involving excavation and carrying out sewage work on a busy public road, it had not only awarded a contract and work order.
• The DJB entrusted a public duty upon the contractor to exercise care, caution and to strictly adhere to the legitimately expected and mandatorily prescribed safety precautions at the site of excavation.
• It is both a constitutional obligation of the state and a corresponding duty of the contractor entrusted with public work.

• Excavation of a pit as deep as 14 feet in the centre of a busy public road without adequate safeguards, in complete violation of the conditions of the work order, tender and permissions granted, reveals not only negligence but also knowledge of a high probability of human injury or death being caused, such as in the present case.
• If contractors engaged in public works on behalf of the state are permitted to escape the rigour of law without fear of consequences, it would endanger the lives of citizens at large.

Courts can’t remain oblivious

• Courts, even while considering bail applications, cannot remain oblivious to their social duty and the impact their orders may have on societal conscience.
• A lenient approach in the facts and circumstances of the present case would send an alarming message of indifference towards accountability of those who, prima facie, convert public roads into death traps, reduce human life to collateral damage of contractual work, and seek to evade responsibility.
• In these circumstances, this court is of the view that a young life has been lost due to gross human negligence and a complete disregard of duty.
• Unauthorised delegation of public work, by the contractor to a sub-contractor, does not absolve the responsibility of the applicants

• There was a hurried attempt at post-incident damage control by placing signage at the site, even while the victim was still lying in the pit.
• This conduct also prima facie indicates that the applicants and the co-accused were well aware of the requirement of placing signage and safety measures at the spot and of the danger posed by an unattended, deeply dug pit in the middle of a public road.

Custodial interrogation necessary

• The circumstances under which such a sub-contract was executed, and the other connected aspects, can be examined only through custodial interrogation of the accused persons.
• Considering that the investigation is still ongoing and that the evidence in the present case is yet to be recovered, there exists a reasonable apprehension, at this stage, that grant of anticipatory bail may hamper effective investigation, including recovery of material documents, and may also result in tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses.

• In view of the gravity of the alleged offence, coupled with the pre-incident and post incident conduct of the accused persons, does not persuade this court to grant the protection of anticipatory bail to the applicants herein.
• More so, where a public work undertaken by a contractor is executed in total disregard of human life, it must invite serious scrutiny under the law.
• Non-bailable warrants had already been issued against the applicants on February 9, 2026.

Young life lost

• The tragedy unfolded shortly after midnight on February 6, 2026.
• A PCR call alerted police that a motorcyclist had fallen into a deep pit near B-3B, close to Andhra School in Janakpuri.
• When officers reached the scene, they found a chilling sight: a massive excavation pit, about 20 feet long, 13 feet wide and 14 feet deep, dug in the middle of a public road.
• Inside it lay a young man and his motorcycle.
• Fire brigade personnel pulled him out and rushed him to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital.
• He was declared dead in the hospital.
• The pit had been dug for rehabilitation of peripheral sewer lines under a Delhi Jal Board (DJB) project.

Midnight calls, silence

• Investigation revealed that the sub-contractor, Rajesh Kumar of M/s Trimurti Associates, was informed about the accident at around 12:22am.
• At 1:56am, he allegedly made a WhatsApp call to Himanshu Gupta, one of the directors of KKSIL, the primary contractor.
• Call detail records show they remained in continuous contact till the morning.
• Yet, the court noted, neither informed the police nor arranged medical assistance.

Non-delegable duty of safety

• The DJB had issued the work order on October 9, 2025 to KKSIL–O Liner JV for sewer rehabilitation in Janakpuri.
• The contract was explicit.
• It required the contractor to install MS sheet barricading at least two metres high.
• Paint barricades in red and white fluorescent stripes.
• Provide signage and caution boards.
• Ensure lighting and watch-and-ward arrangements.
• Keep rescue equipment ready.
• Provide prompt first aid in case of accidents.

• Further, the DCP (Traffic) granted permission for excavation on January 5, 2026, subject to strict conditions including carrying out work only between 10pm and 6am, installing blinkers and warning lights, deploying marshals, and ensuring no danger to road users.
• However, the court noted that excavation was carried out during daytime on February 5, in violation of the traffic police permission and that when the accident occurred at night, none of the mandated safety measures were in place.

Insolvency defence

• Advocates Ajay Paul, Geetu Paul, Dayanand Sharma and Kamlesh Chandra Tripathi, appearing for the applicants argued that they had been suspended as directors pursuant to an NCLT order dated July 11, 2025, and had no operational control when the incident occurred.
• But the court noted several inconsistencies including that the company continued to correspond with the DJB after the NCLT order, the applicants did not inform the DJB about insolvency proceedings and the general manager reportedly stating he took day-to-day instructions from one of the applicants.
• A sub-contract was allegedly executed in June 2025, even before the main work order was formally awarded in October 2025.
• The court held that insolvency proceedings cannot become a shield against criminal liability in such circumstances.