“High Time Citizens Of Delhi Are No Longer Taken For Granted”: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Contractors In 14-Foot ‘Death Trap’ Excavation Case

The Court held that such incidents cannot be brushed aside as mere contractual violations, further noting that courts, even while considering bail, cannot ignore their social duty or the impact of their orders on societal conscience. A lenient approach in this case would send an alarming message of indifference towards accountability of those who turn public roads into “death traps” and reduce human life to collateral damage.

Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “It is high time that the citizens of Delhi are no longer taken for granted and that their lives are valued. Incidents such as the present one cannot also be treated as only violations of the terms of a contract; rather, 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. 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”.

The Court further categorically observed, “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. In this Court’s view, 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”.

Advocate Ajay Paul appeared for the petitioner and Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, a PCR call was made on the night of 06-02-2026 reporting that a motorcyclist had fallen into a large pit dug in the middle of the road near Andhra School, Janakpuri. An FIR was registered at PS Janakpuri under Sections 105/238(b)/9(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the two primary contractors.

During investigation, it was revealed that the excavation had been undertaken in connection with sewer rehabilitation work awarded by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to a joint venture led by K.K. Spun Indian Limited (KKSIL), of which the applicants were Directors. CCTV footage allegedly showed that no barricading, blinkers, or caution boards were installed at the site prior to the accident.

The State argued that CCTV footage showed labourers hurriedly placing barricades and curtains at the site after the accident. Call Detail Records (CDRs) allegedly indicated that the sub-contractor had informed applicant Himanshu Gupta soon after the incident, and that he remained in continuous contact thereafter. However, neither the police nor emergency medical services were informed by them.

The prosecution further contended that the primary contractor had subcontracted the work without prior approval of DJB, and that the sub-contract had been executed even before the formal award of the main contract, a circumstance the Court described as requiring custodial interrogation.

The applicants argued that they had been suspended as Directors pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal and had no role in day-to-day affairs. They also claimed that at best the allegations attracted a bailable offence.

However, the Court noted, “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. To reiterate, the unauthorised delegation of public work, by the contractor to a sub-contractor, does not absolve the responsibility of the applicants herein flowing from the original contract, nor does the plea of CIRP proceedings dilute their criminal liability for the reasons already discussed”.

Referring to the contractual clauses, the Court emphasised that project management, monitoring, quality assurance, and safety measures could not be subcontracted. The contractor bore absolute responsibility for accidents during execution of the work.

It was further noted that the Traffic Police permission had expressly required night-time work (10 PM to 6 AM), proper barricading, electric beacon lights, signage, marshals for pedestrians, and full compliance with safety norms. Yet, excavation was carried out during the day, and the accident occurred at night without safeguards in place.

“It is thus evident from the contractual provisions that the primary contractor (applicants herein) was duty-bound to ensure adequate safety arrangements at the site, including availability of necessary equipment for rescue in the event of a person or vehicle falling into an excavation, provision of first-aid facilities, and prompt intimation to the police and medical authorities. Regrettably, the material on record indicates that none of these measures were in place at the site at the relevant time”, the Bench noted.

Rejecting the plea that this was a case of vicarious liability based merely on designation, the Court held that primary responsibility flowed from the contract itself and the surrounding conduct of the accused.

Accordingly, both anticipatory bail applications were dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial.

Cause Title: Himanshu Gupta v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1693]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Ajay Paul, Geetu Paul, Dayanand Sharma and Kamlesh Chandra Tripathi, Advocates.

Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP, Neha Singh, Aastha Chaturvedi and Rahul Vats, Advocates. Satender Dabas, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board.

Click here to read/download the Judgment