In the SBL blast case, in which 26 workers were killed last month, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected relief to key company officials, including its Managing Director and senior executives, and granted anticipatory bail to three independent directors. The order was passed by Justice Rajnish R Vyas on a batch of anticipatory bail applications arising from a case registered at Kalmeshwar Police Station in Nagpur (Rural). The case relates to a deadly explosion that took place on March 1, 2026, at Shed No. 16-B of an industrial unit in Raulgaon, resulting in the death of 26 workers and injuries to 24 others. The High Court rejected anticipatory bail applications filed by Managing Director Sanjay Choudhari, CEO Alok Choudhari, Director Alok Awadhiya, Director Shrawan Kumar and Safety Officer Kedar Pachputre.

 

However, relief was granted to independent directors Satyawati Parashar, Ravindra Pokharna and Manoj Kumar Prasad. The court noted their limited role and, in Parashar’s case, her medical condition. The FIR invokes serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 105), endangering life (Section 125), and negligent conduct involving explosive substances (Section 288). During the hearing, the applicants - comprising directors, independent directors, and employees - argued that they were not present at the site during the incident and had no direct role in the alleged negligence. Senior counsel contended that criminal liability cannot be imposed merely based on their designation and that there was no evidence of any “positive act” or intent to cause harm. However, the prosecution relied on findings by safety authorities, including the Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health (DISH) and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), which pointed to serious safety lapses.

 

These included failure to conduct risk assessment, absence of adequate safety officers, lack of fire safety equipment, and non-compliance with statutory safety audits despite prior warnings. The High Court observed that the case involved a hazardous industry where strict compliance with safety norms is mandatory. It held that repeated non-compliance, despite prior notices, could amount to culpable conduct and not mere negligence. The court clarified that the issue at this stage was not about vicarious liability but whether a prima facie case existed based on available material. Importantly, the court noted that in such industries, omission to act despite knowledge of risks can attract criminal liability. It stressed that directors and responsible officials have a duty to ensure safety and cannot escape scrutiny at the initial stage of investigation.

 

On the question of anticipatory bail, the court applied settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India, including the need to consider the gravity of the offence, prima facie evidence and larger public interest. Accordingly, the Court rejected anticipatory bail applications filed by Sanjay Choudhari, Alok Choudhari, Alok Awadhiya, Shrawan Kumar and Kedar Pachputre. However, relief was granted to independent directors Satyawati Parashar, Ravindra Pokharna and Manoj Kumar Prasad. They were granted bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and surrender of passports. Sr Advs Mahesh Jethmalani, Pranav P Badheka, Advs Ravi Sharma, Aditya Chaudhari, Prafull Kumar, Amol Mardikar represented the applicants while APP A M Ghogare for the State.