Police Drop Culpable Homicide Charge Against Schaeffler India CEO Harsha Kadam; Bombay High Court Stays Investigation
The Maharashtra Police have dropped the culpable homicide charge against Harsha Gopal Kadam, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Schaeffler India, in connection with a fatal gas leak at the company’s Talegaon manufacturing facility in Pune. The development came after the Bombay High Court stayed further investigation against Kadam and directed the authorities not to file a chargesheet or supplementary chargesheet against him pending further orders.
Kadam was released from police custody on a bail bond on October 22, 2026, following an order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vadgaon Maval in Pune. The police had dropped the charge under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which was the only non-bailable offence alleged against him in the case.
The Bombay High Court issued its interim order on October 23, 2026, while hearing Kadam’s petition seeking to quash the investigation against him. Justice Milind N. Jadhav questioned the circumstances surrounding his arrest several months after the industrial accident and the subsequent addition of the culpable homicide charge.
The court observed that the original investigation had resulted in a chargesheet being filed on September 2, 2026, without naming Kadam as an accused. The police subsequently added the culpable homicide provision on October 19 and took him into custody the same day. The court questioned why the more serious charge had been introduced at that stage and whether the circumstances justified his arrest.
Kadam’s legal team argued that no specific act of negligence or direct involvement in the incident had been attributed to him. His counsel also submitted that the CEO was neither present at the factory during the accident nor directly involved in the maintenance operation that resulted in the gas leak.
The High Court noted that Kadam’s statement had already been recorded during the investigation before the original chargesheet was filed. It questioned whether his custodial interrogation was necessary in the absence of newly discovered material and observed that the authorities could have called upon him to cooperate with the investigation.
The case relates to a carbon dioxide leak that occurred on June 9, 2026, at Schaeffler India’s manufacturing facility in Talegaon, near Pune. The incident took place during a scheduled cylinder replacement operation involving the factory’s fire-suppression system and resulted in the deaths of two workers employed by a service provider. Four other people were reported to have sustained injuries.
Following the incident, police initiated an investigation into possible safety lapses and alleged negligence. The initial chargesheet named several individuals, including the plant head, safety officer, heat-treatment head and representatives of maintenance contractors. The investigation was later expanded to include Kadam in his capacity as the designated occupier of the factory premises under the applicable law.
Schaeffler India had earlier informed the stock exchanges that Kadam was taken into custody on October 19. The company stated that it and its officers had cooperated with the authorities and would continue to do so. It also said that senior management remained responsible for day-to-day operations and that business activities continued in the ordinary course.
The High Court’s intervention provides interim relief to Kadam, but it does not amount to a final decision on the allegations surrounding the factory accident. The stay remains subject to further orders, and the legal proceedings concerning the incident have not been conclusively resolved.
The case has drawn attention to the legal responsibilities of senior executives designated as factory occupiers, particularly when an industrial accident results in fatalities. The proceedings will also be closely watched for the court’s examination of the circumstances in which criminal charges may be added during an ongoing investigation and whether custodial action is justified by the evidence available.
