Bombay High Court
Indrapal Gurunath Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 2024
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2024:BHC-AS:21948
20-ba-547-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2024
Indrapal Gurunath Patil ...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Ms. Sana Khan a/w. Mr. Aditya Parmar, Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Ms.
Ruchita Rajpurohit and Ms. Sneha Mishra, for the Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : APRIL 30, 2024
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The applicant who is arraigned in C.R. No. 378 of 2023
registered with Narpoli police station, Thane for the offences
punishable under sections 304(2), 337, 338 and 427 read with 34
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 seeks to be enlarged on bail.
3. The applicant was the owner of land bearing survey No. 89/6
situated at Vardhaman Complex, Near Pipeline, Valpada, Tal.
Bhiwandi. The applicant allegedly constructed a three storey
building unauthorizedly sans permission of the planning authority.
The ground floor and first floor premises were let out to MRK Food
Private Limited to store goods. There were 13 residential rooms on
the second floor and 12 on the third floor. The applicant had
allegedly permitted a telecom company to erect a mobile tower
without considering the structural stability of the said building to
Vishal Parekar ...1
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2024 03:26:21 :::
20-ba-547-2024.doc
bear the weight. On 29th April, 2023 at about 1.00 pm the said
building collapsed. As many as 8 persons were killed and 13 were
injured. A report came to be lodged with the allegation that on
account of the criminal negligence on the part of the applicant in
unauthorizedly erecting the building and permitting the building to
be used for storage and installation of the mobile tower, despite the
applicant having known that the building was not structurally
stable, the applicant committed the offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
4. The applicant came to be arrested on 30 th April, 2023. Post
completion of investigation, charge sheet has been lodged.
5. Ms. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the applicant had no role in the incident of the building collapse.
The allegations of the prosecution that the building was constructed
sans permission of the planning authority is not correct. In fact, the
building was constructed with the prior permission of the
Grampanchayat Val, Tal. Bhiwandi. Even the mobile tower was
installed on the terrace of the building after obtaining the stability
certificate from the consulting structural engineer. It was submitted
that the inquiry conducted by the Government revealed that the
building collapsed as excess goods were stored in the said building
beyond its capacity, for which the applicant was not responsible.
Vishal Parekar ...2
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2024 03:26:21 :::
20-ba-547-2024.doc
6. Mr. Tanveer Khan, the learned APP resisted the prayer for
bail. It was submitted that 8 lives were lost in the incident. There
are statements of witnesses which indicate that the applicant had
not carried out necessary repairs and maintenance. Therefore, the
building collapsed. Hence, the applicant does not deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
7. As a statement was made on behalf of the applicant that the
initial construction was erected with the approval of the planning
authority, the prosecution was directed to verify the said fact. It
seems that the investigating officer verified the said fact. The
Village Panchayat, Val has informed that permission to construct
the building at Survey No. 89/1, 6 comprising of ground plus two
floors was granted on 29th June, 2007.
8. I have perused the statements of the witnesses. The residents
of the building and the relatives of the victim have stated that the
applicant did not carry out the repairs and maintenance work.
However, it appears debatable whether the said omission on the
part of the applicant may fall within the dragnet of the offence
punishable under section 304 of the Penal Code.
9. As regards the allegation of erecting the mobile tower over the
terrace of the building without considering its structural stability, it
appears that the structural engineer, 'Unique Design' had certified
Vishal Parekar ...3
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2024 03:26:21 :::
20-ba-547-2024.doc
the structural stability of the building to house the mobile tower on
19th March, 2023. The statement of Kundan Gadre indicates that
the mobile tower was erected in the year 2017, after satisfying that
the building was structurally stable to bear the weight of the
mobile tower.
10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question as to whether
the applicant had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause the
death of the victims, so as to fall within the ambit of offence
punishable under section 304 of the Penal Code, would be a matter
for adjudication at the trial. A useful reference can be made to the
judgment in the case of Shantibhai J. Vaghela and Anr. vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors.1 wherein the following observations were made.
24] Section 299 IPC defines culpable homicide as
causing of death by doing an act with the intention
of causing of death or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or
with the knowledge that by such act death is likely to
be caused. Under Section 300 IPC all acts of
culpable homicide amount to murder except what
is specifically covered by the exceptions to the said
Section 300. Section 304 of Indian Penal Code
provides for punishment for the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
25] Commission of the offence of culpable homicide
would require some positive act on the part of the
accused as distinguished from silence, inaction or a
mere lapse. Allegations of not carrying out a prompt
search of the missing children; of delay in the lodging
of formal complaint with the police and failure to
take adequate measures to guard the access from
the ashram to the river, which are the principal
1 (2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 231.
Vishal Parekar ...4
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2024 03:26:21 :::
20-ba-547-2024.doc
allegations made in the FIR, cannot make out a case
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
punishable under Section 304 IPC. To attract the
ingredients of the said offence something more
positive than a mere omission, lapse or negligence
on the part of the named accused will have to be
present. Such statements are conspicuously absent
in the FIR filed in the present case.
11. Undoubtedly, the building collapsed and resulted in the death
of 8 persons. 13 persons sustained injuries. Nonetheless, the aspect
of the complicity of the applicant deserves to be taken into account.
Investigation seems to be complete for all intent and purpose. The
applicant has roots in society. The possibility of tampering with the
evidence in the context of the nature of the accusation appears
remote. I am, thus, inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the
applicant.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1] The application stands allowed.
2] The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. 378 of 2023 registered with Narpoli police station, Thane on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
3] The applicant shall mark his presence at Narpoli police station on the first Monday of every month between 11 am to Vishal Parekar ...5 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2024 03:26:21 ::: 20-ba-547-2024.doc 1 pm for a period of three years or till conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier.
4] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement to first informant, any of the prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
5] The applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. 6] The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.
7] By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of the entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
Application disposed.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
Vishal Parekar ...6
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2024 03:26:21 :::