SUMIT KISHOR KRIPLANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2419 OF 2026


Sumit Kishor Kriplani                               …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra                            …Respondent

                                 WITH
              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3129 OF 2026
                                  IN
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2419 OF 2026

Ravindra Subhas Deshmukh                            …Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Sumit Kishor Kriplani                               …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra                            …Respondent


Mr. Kushal Mor a/w. Mr. Apoorv Srivastava, Mr. Vaibhav Hari, Mr.
Tanvir Kazi and Mr. Chaitanya Sapkal, for the Applicants.
Mrs. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for Respondent-State.
Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Sagar Wakale, for the
Intervenor/First Informant.
Mr. Nikumbh, Police Constable, attached to Igatpuri Police Station,
Nashik Rural, Nashik, present.


                       CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :     1st OCTOBER 2026
PC:-


1.       Heard Mr. Mor, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant,

Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor/First




                                 Page 1
Sonali
                                                 926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




Informant and Mrs. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.



2.       This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking pre-arrest bail

in connection with C.R. No.179 of 2026 registered with Igatpuri

Police Station, Nashik Rural, Nashik, for the offences punishable

under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

(“BNS”).



3.       It is the submission of Mr. Mor, learned Counsel appearing

for the Applicant that the incident has taken place after swimming

pool timings were over. Learned Counsel submits Notice Boards

were installed regarding swimming pool timings. He submits that

the incident had taken place at about 07:30 p.m. and the

swimming pool timings are from 09:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. He

Submits that during said period of 09:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m

security guards/ life guards are provided. He relies on the decision

of the Supreme Court in the case of Shantibhai J. Vaghela & Anr.

vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.1,and more particularly on paragraphs 24


1        (2012) 13 SCC 231




                                 Page 2
Sonali
                                                926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




and 25 and submitted that in an identical factual position the

Supreme Court has held that Section 304 of the Indian Penal code

will not be applicable. He therefore, submits that the Applicant is

not involved in the crime. He therefore, prays that relief of per-

arrest bail be granted.



4.       On the other hand, Mrs. Yadav, learned APP appearing for

the Respondent-State strongly opposed the Anticipatory Bail

Application. Learned APP submits that as the security guards and

life guards were not available at the relevant time, a child aged 3.5

years had passed away. She submits section 105 of BNS is squarely

applicable to the present case and therefore application be

rejected.



5.       Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the First

Informant in addition to the above submissions relies on the

Government Resolution dated 4th November 2015 issued by the

Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra,

which mandates the compulsory appointment of lifeguards at

swimming pools. He also relies on the order of a learned Single

Judge (Aurangabad Bench) dated 16th July 2026 passed in




                               Page 3
Sonali
                                                926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




Anticipatory Bail Application No.2248 of 2025 and more

particularly, on paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said order.



6.       The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.5 of the

Anticipatory Bail Application, which reads as under:



            “5. The Applicant states that the alleged case of
            prosecution as per the FIR is as follows:

            i) The Complainant, Ravindra Subhash
            Deshmukh, aged about 39 years, is employed as a
            Police Constable at Police Station Cantonment,
            Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City. He resides at
            Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar with his wife
            Namrata and their two sons, namely Rudraksh,
            aged 12 years, and Agastya, aged about 3½
            years.

            ii) The Complainant and his fellow police
            personnel were scheduled to complete 20 years
            of service on 31 July 2026. Accordingly, they
            decided to organize a family get-together for the
            members of their police batch. The arrangements
            for the said get-together were undertaken by
            Police Constable Rafiq Sheikh and Police
            Inspector Kiran Bidwe, Police Station Bhokardan,
            District Jalna.

            iii) For the said get-together, Manas Lifestyle
            Resort, Igatpuri, was selected as the venue. In
            connection with the booking, the Complainant's
            batchmate Swapnil Rajput, Nashik, contacted the
            owner of the resort, Sumit Kriplani, and




                                Page 4
Sonali
                                                926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




         facilitated   communication     between         the
         organizers and the resort management.

         iv) On 29 June 2026, Police Inspector Kiran
         Bidwe spoke to Sumit Kriplani regarding the
         proposed get-together. It was specifically
         informed to him that approximately 40-45
         families, including small children, would be
         attending the event. Kiran Bidwe accordingly
         requested the resort management to take
         adequate precautions and make proper
         arrangements for the safety of the children.
         Sumit Kriplani allegedly assured them that there
         was no need for concern and that the entire
         responsibility would be that of the resort
         management. He thereafter provided the contact
         details of Saurabh Kamble, the Booking Manager,
         stating that he would make the necessary
         arrangements.

         v) Thereafter, Kiran Bidwe contacted Saurabh
         Kamble on several occasions in connection with
         the proposed event. On 7 July 2026, Rafiq Sheikh
         and Ravindra Pankade, who had been appointed
         as the Event Manager, visited the resort for a spot
         inspection. Saurabh Kamble showed them the
         resort and its facilities.

         vi) During the said visit, Rafiq Sheikh informed
         Saurabh Kamble that the get-together was
         scheduled to take place from 26 July 2026 to 27
         July 2026, and that approximately 40-45
         families, including small children, comprising
         around 155-160 persons, would be attending. He
         also explained the proposed programme to the
         resort management.

         vii) It was specifically brought to the attention of
         Saurabh Kamble that the swimming pool would



                               Page 5
Sonali
                                              926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




         remain open and that, since several small
         children would be present, there was a possibility
         of an untoward incident. Rafiq Sheikh therefore
         requested that two additional security guards be
         deployed at the swimming pool during the event
         and that adequate safety arrangements be
         maintained. Saurabh Kamble allegedly assured
         them that they need not worry and that the entire
         responsibility would be borne by the resort
         management.

         viii) The aforesaid information was thereafter
         shared by Rafiq Sheikh on the WhatsApp group
         of the police batch, following which the members
         consented to the booking of the resort. In the
         period leading up to the event, Kiran Bidwe and
         Rafiq Sheikh remained in contact with Saurabh
         Kamble over telephone and WhatsApp regarding
         the arrangements.

         ix) On 26 July 2026, approximately 40 families
         and around 155-160 persons, including children,
         travelled from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar to
         Manas Lifestyle Resort, Igatpuri. The group
         travelled in three privately hired Traveller
         vehicles, while another two to three families
         travelled in private vehicles. They reached the
         resort at approximately 2:00 p.m. and met Parag
         Trivedi, the Resort Manager, who provided them
         lunch.

         x) The Complainant states that certain
         deficiencies were noticed in the arrangements
         immediately     upon    arrival.   The    seating
         arrangement for lunch was allegedly inadequate
         and the lift was not functioning while the guests
         were carrying their luggage to their rooms. Kiran
         Bidwe consequently complained to Parag Trivedi
         and also contacted Saurabh Kamble. Kiran Bidwe




                              Page 6
Sonali
                                                926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




         specifically reiterated to Parag Trivedi that, since
         small children were present, special attention was
         required to be given to the swimming pool.

         xi) The Complainant was allotted Room No. 43,
         situated above the swimming pool. Prior to the
         main event, some of the families, including
         children, spent some time playing in the
         swimming pool. Thereafter, the families
         proceeded to the Banquet Hall for the scheduled
         event.

         xii) After the first event in the Banquet Hall
         concluded, the members of the group proceeded
         to change their clothes and were expected to
         return to the hall after approximately half an
         hour for the subsequent event. During this
         interval, the Complainant's minor son Agastya,
         aged about 3½ years, allegedly slipped away
         from the gathering unnoticed while playing. The
         Complainant and his companions initially
         searched for him in the Banquet Hall but could
         not locate him.

         xiii) At about the same time, the wife and son of
         one of the members of the group, namely Tarte,
         were proceeding from the swimming-pool area
         towards their room. They allegedly noticed
         Agastya lying in the swimming pool and raised an
         alarm. Upon hearing the alarm, Ravindra Salve
         immediately rushed towards the swimming pool,
         removed Agastya from the water, attempted to
         remove water from his stomach and administered
         CPR. The Complainant and his wife thereafter
         reached the spot and immediately took Agastya
         to Ganpati Small Children's Hospital at Ghoti for
         medical treatment. The doctors examined
         Agastya and declared him dead.




                               Page 7
Sonali
                                             926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




         xiv) Following the incident, members of the
         group immediately examined the CCTV footage
         of the resort. According to the Complainant, the
         footage revealed that Agastya had gone towards
         the swimming pool without the family's
         knowledge. It was further alleged that there were
         no adequate safety arrangements, security
         guards, lifeguards or barricading at the
         swimming pool, despite the instructions allegedly
         given to the resort management and the
         standards prescribed by the Government.

         xv) According to the Complainant, Agastya had
         gone towards the swimming pool to retrieve a
         ball and, while attempting to do so, his foot
         slipped and he fell into the swimming pool.

         xvi) The Complainant alleges that Sumit Kriplani,
         owner of Manas Lifestyle Resort, Saurabh
         Kamble, Booking Manager, and Parag Trivedi,
         Resort Manager, were aware of the presence of a
         large number of persons, including several small
         children, at the resort and were specifically
         informed in advance about the potential danger
         posed by the swimming pool. They were also
         allegedly requested to provide security
         guards/lifeguards    and      adequate     safety
         arrangements.

         xvii) It is further alleged that, despite having
         knowledge of the potential danger, the aforesaid
         persons failed to provide adequate safety
         arrangements, security guards and lifeguards at
         the swimming pool during the event and thereby
         failed to comply with the applicable Government
         directions concerning swimming pools. The
         Complainant consequently attributes the death of
         his minor son, Agastya Deshmukh, to the alleged
         omissions and acts of the said persons.




                             Page 8
Sonali
                                                  926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




            xviii) On the basis of the aforesaid allegations,
            the Complainant lodged the present FIR at
            Igatpuri Police Station on 29 July 2026, alleging
            commission of offences punishable under
            Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
            Sanhita, 2023, and sought appropriate legal
            action against the persons named therein.”

                                          (Emphasis added)


7.       Perusal of the record shows that the incident had taken place

at about 07:30 p.m., on 26th July, 2026 where a child of 3.5 years

went to the swimming pool to retrieve a ball and while attempting

to do so, fell into the swimming pool. Admittedly, neither security

guards nor lifeguards were available at the swimming pool at that

time. It is the contention of learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant, that since the swimming pool timings were over when

the incident had occurred, it was not necessary to have security

guards or lifeguards present. However, it is required to be noted

that the Applicant is the owner of the resort where the said

swimming pool is situated. The Applicant is commercially

exploiting the said resort. There was no cover put up on the said

swimming pool or the said area is closed so that nobody can enter

the said area. Even the Security guards were also not deployed at

the said place.




                                 Page 9
Sonali
                                                    926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




8.       In the light of above factual position it is necessary to

consider Section 105 of the BNS, which is as under:



            “Whoever commits culpable homicide not
            amount to murder, shall be punished with
            imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
            description for a term which shall not be less
            than five years but which may extend to ten
            years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by
            which the dealth is caused is done with the
            intention of causing death, or of causing such
            bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with
            imprisonment of either description for a term
            which may extend to ten years and with fine, if
            the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely
            to cause death, but without any intention to
            cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
            likely to cause death.”

                                              (Emphasis added)


9.       Thus, what is significant is that if the act of accused by

which death has caused is done with knowledge that it is likely to

cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, then Section 105 of

BNS is attracted.



10.      It is very clear that the first part of Section 105 of BNS will

not apply to the present case, however, second part of Section 105




                                  Page 10
Sonali
                                                  926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




of BNS where if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely

to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death will apply to the

present case. The said resort is commercial activity of the

applicant. Admittedly, the Applicant is owner of the resort where

the swimming pool is situated.          Admittedly, after 06:00 p.m.

neither the security guards nor the life guards were available in the

area of Swimming pool. The said swimming pool is not covered

nor even the said area is closed or barricaded.



11.      It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant that adequate Notice Boards were put up at swimming

pool, stating that the timings of the swimming pool are from 09:00

a.m. to 06:00 p.m.. However, even it is nor the contention of the

learned counsel of the applicant that the swimming pool is covered

after 06:00 p.m. or the said are is closed/barricaded so that

nobody can enter the said area. It is admitted position that after

6:00 p.m even security guards were also not appointed for the said

area. Thus, the second part of Section 105 of BNS is squarely

applicable to the present case.




                                  Page 11
Sonali
                                                  926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




12.      Although learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has

very heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the

case of Shantibhai J. Vaghela (supra), the facts of that case are that

there is a river just adjoining the Ashram and the allegation was

that due to the negligence of the Ashram, the incident had taken

place. However, in that case, admittedly, the said river was not in

the property of the said Ashram. In this case, admittedly, the

swimming pool is in the property of the Applicant where the

Applicant is having a resort. The Applicant is commercially

exploiting the same. It was the Applicant’s duty to safeguard the

said swimming pool all times irrespective of the timings. Prima

facie, Section 105 of the BNS is applicable to the present case. The

offence is very serious where a child of 3.5 years has lost his life. It

is not expected that the child of 3.5 years will look at the Notice

Board and will not enter the said area. Admittedly, the Security

guard is not stationed in the said area of swimming pool and

neither barricades are put to ensure that nobody enters the said

area after 06 p.m and therefore, prima facie, crime under Section

105 of BNS is made out.




                                Page 12
Sonali
                                                   926-ABA-2419-2026.DOC




13.      Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory

bail.



14.      The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.



15.      In view of the disposal of the Anticipatory Bail Application,

nothing survives in the Interim Application and the same is also

disposed of.



16.      It is clarrified that observation in this order are prima facie

and made for consideration of Anticipatory Bail of the Applicant.




                                             [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                  Page 13
Sonali