ADVERTISEMENT

Kamala Mills fire: HC rejects bail pleas of eatery owners

Published - November 02, 2018 12:59 am IST - Mumbai

They were denied bail by lower courts in April

The fire in Kamala Mills Compund in December last year claimed 14 lives.

The Bombay High Court on Thursday rejected the bail pleas of the owners of Mojo’s Bistro and 1Above, the eateries where fire broke out on December 29, 2017, killing 14 and injuring 59.

ADVERTISEMENT

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Prakash Naik was hearing bail applications filed by Yug Pathak (27), co-owner of Mojo’s Bistro, and Kripesh (36) and Jigar Sanghavi (37), and Abhijit Mankar (30) of 1Above. They are currently in judicial custody.

On April 11, the city civil and sessions court had rejected their bail pleas. At the time, judge S.V. Yarlagadda had ruled, “The case papers against them show that the pubs and especially hookah service were being run by violating rules.”

The court had also said, “I have noticed that the owners of both the pubs are trying to shift the burden to each other by saying that the fire emanated from other premises. Therefore, this conduct shows that they are not entitled for bail and this conduct further shows that they are influential persons.”

ADVERTISEMENT

On April 27, High Court had also rejected the bail plea of Yug Tulli, co-owner of Mojo’s Bistro.

The owners have been charged under Sections 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 216 (harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered), 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (punishment for forgery), 466 (forgery of record of court or of public register, etc), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) and 36 (effect caused partly by act and partly by omission) of the Indian Penal Code.

This is a Premium article available exclusively to our subscribers. To read 250+ such premium articles every month
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
The Hindu operates by its editorial values to provide you quality journalism.
This is your last free article.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT