Gujarat Bridge Collapse: Renovation Firm's Boss's Bail Request Rejected

Ahmedabad:

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday rejected the regular bail plea of Oreva Group CMD Jaysukh Patel, the main accused in the October 2022 Morbi suspension bridge collapse which claimed 135 lives.

“The application is dismissed,” Justice Divyesh Joshi said while denying bail to Patel, who has been behind bars since his surrender in January this year after being named as the main accused in the case.

His regular bail pleas were earlier rejected by lower courts.

Patel’s 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 others have been charged under Indian Penal Code 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).

With Patel’s bail plea being rejected, four out of the 10 accused in the case are behind bars, including the Oreva Group’s manager, and two proprietors of Devprakash Solutions, the firm which carried out the repair work.

The Gujarat government had not opposed Patel’s bail plea, leaving it for the court to decide on it.

Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin during an earlier hearing told the HC that the investigation officer informed a 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 out.

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 said in the submission.

Opposing Patel’s plea, the victims’ lawyer, Rahul Sharma, said 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 shocked the conscience of society.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)