The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail application of Oreva Group CMD Jaysukh Patel, the main accused in the October 2022 Morbi suspension bridge collapse that killed 135 persons
Morbi suspension bridge that had collapsed in 2022. File Pic/ PTI
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail application of Oreva Group CMD Jaysukh Patel, the main accused in the October 2022 Morbi suspension bridge collapse that killed 135 persons.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dismissing Patel's bail plea, the court of Justice Divyesh Joshi observed that prima facie it appears that the accused allowed the suspension bridge to be kept open for the public despite knowing the possibility of such an unfortunate incident occurring for want of proper maintenance.
Had Patel taken sufficient corrective measures, the tragedy could have been averted and precious lives of innocent persons saved, the court observed in its order.
Patel, the Chairman and Managing Director of Oreva Group, has been behind bars since his surrender in January this year after being named as the main accused in the case.
His firm was responsible for the operation and maintenance of the British-era suspension bridge on the Machchhu river in Gujarat's Morbi town which collapsed on October 30 last year, killing 135 people, including children, and injuring 56 others.
Patel and nine other accused in the case have been charged under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 336 (act which endangers human life), 337 (causing hurt to any person by doing any rash or negligent act) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by doing rash or negligent act). Six of them are currently out on bail.
"It is also an admitted fact that since the year 2008, the said work was being carried out by the company of the present applicant...It is found out from the record that, prima facie, the applicant accused was having knowledge that this kind of unfortunate incident might occur for want of proper maintenance of the suspension bridge, and even after having sufficient knowledge of the condition of the bridge, he gave permission to open the bridge for public," it said.
The court said that without discussing anything on merits and demerits of the case, it was not inclined to entertain the bail application at this juncture by only considering the facts that, prima facie, the applicant was having sufficient knowledge right from the beginning about the condition of the bridge, the nature and gravity of the charges, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction and his position and standing in the society, etc.
So far as submission made by additional advocate general Mitesh Amin for the court to apply judicial discretion while deciding on the bail plea was concerned, it said that sound discretion guided by law must be governed by rule and must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular.
"In the case of granting bail, the judicial discretion of a judge must be exercised not in opposition to, but in accordance with the established principle of law," it said.
The court said that whether the case of the applicant and other accused falls under the offence of 'murder' or 'culpable homicide' not amounting to murder is a question to be decided at the time of trial, in response to the argument of the lawyer for the accused that ingredients of section 304 are, prima facie, not established against him.
A total of four out of 10 accused in the case are behind bars, including the manager of Oreva Group, and two proprietors of Devprakash Solutions, the firm which carried out the repair work.
The Gujarat government had not opposed the bail plea, leaving it on the court's discretion to decide. Submitting before the court, additional advocate general Mitesh Amin had told the court that the investigator informed the sessions court on September 18 this year that all facets and features of the probe into the bridge collapse were covered and nothing was left.
Arguing for bail, Patel's lawyer Nirupam Nanavaty had told the court that the operation and maintenance of the bridge was not a profit-making venture for the Oreva Group.
He said the Oreva Group's employees permitted the crowd of people to rush to the bridge as it was a holiday.
"And beyond the strength of the bridge, they swung the bridge and it collapsed. It was an intervening factor which caused the collapse. It was contributory negligence," he had said in his submission.
Opposing his plea, the victims' lawyer Rahul Sharma had said that there is a strong possibility of witnesses' records being tampered with in the event of the accused being enlarged on bail. He also cited the gravity of offence and the fact that the incident shocks the conscience of society.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
