The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail application of Oreva Group Chairman and Managing Director Jaysukh Patel, the main accused in the Morbi suspension bridge collapse tragedy in which at least 135 people were killed in October 2022.
Justice Divyesh Joshi dismissed the bail plea while observing 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 or safety norms.
Justice Joshi held that had the firm that was responsible for renovation and maintenance of the colonial-era bridge taken sufficient corrective measures, the tragedy could have been averted and the precious lives of innocent persons saved.
Mr. Patel, the CMD of Oreva Group, a local clock and electronic appliances manufacturer, has been behind bars since his surrender in January this year after being named as the main accused in the case.
Earlier, his bail plea was rejected by the local court also.
The Oreva Group was given the contract by the municipality to maintain and operate the British-era suspension bridge on the Machchhu river in Morbi town which collapsed on October 30 last year, killing at least 135 people, including children, and injuring 56 others.
The police have charged Mr. Patel and nine other accused in the case 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).
So far, six of the 10 accused have gone bail in the case.
“It is also an admitted fact that since 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 had 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,” the HC order said.
The court said that without discussing anything on the 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 had sufficient knowledge right from the beginning about the condition of the bridge, the nature and gravity of the charges, the severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction and his position and standing in the society, etc.
So far, as the submission made by additional advocate general Mitesh Amin for the court to apply judicial discretion while deciding on the bail plea was concerned, Justice Samir Dave held 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.”
