Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Vishwas Manohar Dangat vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 December, 2019

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 2859

Author: Prakash D. Naik

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

 Sajakali Jamadar              1 of 11            904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


        CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2205 OF 2019

 Vishwas Manohar Dangat                           ....Applicant
       V/S
 The State Of Maharashtra                         ....Respondent

                               WITH
        CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1868 OF 2019

 Sudhir Vasudeo Borkar                                     ....Applicant
       V/S
 The State Of Maharashtra                                  ....Respondent

                                  .....
 Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate For Applicant in ABA No. 2205
 of 2019.
 Mr. D.S.Mhaispurkar, Advocate for Applicant in ABA No.1868 of 2019.
 Mr. P .P. Shinde APP for State/Respondent
                                  .....
                               CORAM :       PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                               DATE      :   19th December, 2019
 PC :

 1.        The applicants in both these applications are apprehending

 arrest in C.R. No. 467 of 2019 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth

 Police Station, Dist. Pune for offences punishable under Sections 304,

 308, 337 and 338 and 34 of IPC.


 2.        The applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2205 of

 2019 are partners in partnership firm M/s. Shree Samartha

 Construction Group. They had undertaken the land bearing S.No.

 10/10 Village Ambegaon Budruk, Haveli, Pune for development from




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                      ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar              2 of 11            904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 its owners Mr. Sakharam Ganpat Kondhare and others by

 development agreement and Power of Attorney dated 23 rd April

 2015. The applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1868 of

 2019 is propprietor of M/s. Abhishek Construction. He was given

 work order on 16th July, 2010 by Sinhagad Technical Education

 Society for construction of compound wall.


 3.        The prosecution case is as follows.:


           On the night of 1st July, 2019 at about 11.50 p.m. the

 complainant received a call from the police station officer that the

 compound wall adjoining Mrs. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic college at

 Vadgaon, Ambegaon Budruk has collapsed. Since Sinhagad College

 comes within the jurisdiction of Ambegaon Beat Marshals the

 representative of the bit chowki reached the place of the incident and

 confirmed with control room that the stone compound wall adjoining

 Mrs. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic college and Sinhagad Technical

 Education Society had collapsed and the huts along the wall were

 buried under the brick, stone debris of the wall with the labourers

 residing in the huts. The Fire Brigade team arrived and injured taken

 to the hospital. During the search and rescue operation they pulled

 out 16 laborers out of which 6 had died and 10 were injured. The

 place of incident is an open space approximately 80 to 100 feet in




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                      ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar              3 of 11         904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 length which has 12 feet stone wall with 4 feet brick construction

 over it. It was alleged that along the wall is Sinhagad Technical

 Education Campus Pune, Students activity Centre and Venutai

 Chavan Polytechnic College. There is an open space for parking plot

 and and fire floor building under construction. The labourers

 employed for construction activity were given temporary residence in

 the huts along the wall. Cracks in compound walls were ignored and

 no steps were taken to strengthen the wall or repair. The respective

 authorities, the owner of the said property, the builder as well as the

 construction contractor did not take any repairing work to strengthn

 wall. The construction authority builder and contractor knowingly

 accommodated their construction laborers in the temporary bamboo

 and teen huts along the weak compound wall which had cracks and

 absorbing water due to heavy rain, resulting in collapse on these huts

 leading to the entrapment of 16 Persons.


 4.        The applicants had preferred application for anticipatory bail

 before the Sessions Court were rejected on 19 th August, 2019 &

 4th September, 2019.


 4.        Learned counsel for the applicant in Anticipatory Bail

 Application No.2205 of 2019 submitted that the charge under

 Section 304 -II or any other Penal provisions cannot be attributed to




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                   ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar              4 of 11        904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 the applicant. It is submitted that the knowledge which is requisite to

 constitute the offences of culpable homicide not amounting to

 murder as envisaged under the provision of Section 304 (2) cannot

 be attributed to the applicants. The applicants are not responsible for

 collapse of wall. The applicants were not concerned with the

 construction of wall or taking in precautionary measures for

 repairing the wall. The wall was constructed several years ago and

 collapsed on account of its condition. The institute planted trees

 close to wall. The technical report by engineering college states that

 construction quality is poor. It was unsafe. It is submitted that the

 labourers were working for labour contractor or and they were

 deployed by the said contract at various places. The huts were

 erected at his instance. The laborers had not informed the applicant

 about any apprehension of danger to their life on account of

 dilapidated condition of the wall. The applicant were not concerned

 with the incident of the collapsed of wall which has resulted in

 injuries and casualties to the laborers. The owners of the land and

 others were granted anticipatory bail. The applicants had tendered

 additional affidavit stating that the charge-sheet in respect of FIR has

 been filed by the investigating machinery on 17 th September, 2019

 and on perusal of the charge-sheet it is apparent that the compound

 wall had collapsed on the night of 1st July, 2019. There was much




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar              5 of 11       904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 distance between the wall and the huts. Several trees were planted

 behind wall by Mrs. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic college after the

 construction of the wall and there was students activities center.

 Behind the said wall in the space between the said wall and the

 permanent structure of the college, there was underground storm

 pipeline which runs parallel to the said wall. That the huts of the

 laborers were constructed on the other side of the wall at the

 distance of about 10 feet from the said wall. The applicant have

 relied upon photographs which are annexed to this affidavit and it is

 contended that it can be seen that trees alongside the wall were

 planted above storm water pipeline. As a result of this roots of the

 tress could not seep into soil on account of obstruction of pipelines

 underneath. As the roots would not grow downwards in to the soil,

 they had grown in such a way that they seeped into the wall

 affecting the strength said wall. It is submitted that the observations

 made by the City Engineer PMC indicates that trees were wrongly

 planted over a pipelines which had weakened the wall.                     It is

 submitted that report by Pune Muncipal Corporation mentions that

 the retaining wall retained back fill soil of varied height 2.4 M to

 2.5M. In the open space between retaining wall and building trees

 are seen. Trees behind wall have cracked into masonry structure

 seepage increased the pressure on the wall. It is submitted that in the




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar              6 of 11       904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 aforesaid circumstance custodial interrogation of the applicant were

 not warranted and they have willing to cooperate with the

 investigation.


 6.        Learned advocate appearing in Anticipatory Bail Application

 No. 1868 of 2019 submitted that he had no control over the wall

 which was constructed in 2010. The responsibility to get the wall

 repaired was with the Sinhagad Technical Institute. On 7 th July, 2011

 the applicant had written letter to the institution to release the

 balance amount which was withheld as security deposit for 6

 months. The said amount was related since construction was done by

 applicant in accordance with specification. He was not assigned work

 to look after maintenance of wall. It is further submitted that the

 concerned college had carried out the construction by increasing the

 height of the wall which is apparent from the statement of Mangesh

 Ranka recorded on 6th July, 2019 which is affirmed in the charge-

 sheet filed against the accused. He further submitted that the

 contractor carried out the repairs of the wall of the extending its

 height was also impleaded the accused which appears from applicant

 forwarded by police to the learned J.M.F.C. for recording statements

 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In the said application M/s. Shree

 Samartha Construction Group was shown as an wanted accused. It is

 submitted that the said accused has not been arrested. He further




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar              7 of 11          904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 submitted that the damage to the wall was caused on account of the

 growth of trees and seeping of root of trees into wall. The applicant

 had no occasion to supervise the condition of the wall at the relevant

 time. Hence, the applicant cannot be attributed with any knowledge

 required to constitute the offence under Section 304 -II.


 7.        Learned APP submitted that the offence is of serious in nature.

 The negligence on the part of the accused had resulted in death of

 six persons and injuries to ten persons. Learned App relied upon the

 report with regards to the construction of wall and its strength which

 indicate that the construction was weak. She relied on technical

 reports by corporation and Pune Engineering College. It is further

 submitted that the applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.

 2205 of 2019 were aware about the dilapidated condition of the wall

 and in spite of fact that huts were erected to accommodate laborers.

 She further submitted that the accused were informed about the

 condition of the wall and apprehension of danger by persons

 occupying the huts. In spite of information provided to them no

 action was initiated. They had knowledge that any untoward

 incident may occurre causing danger to the life of the persons

 occupying huts which were situated near the compound wall. It is

 further submitted that the investigation is in progress and this is not

 the stage of evaluating the evidence. Prima facia involvement of the




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                   ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar              8 of 11         904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 applicants is disclosed during the investigation and therefore the

 applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.


 9.        I have perused the documents. The case of the prosecution is

 evident from the FIR and the investigation papers. The compound

 wall was constructed in 2010. The applicant in Anticipatory Bail

 Application No. 2205 of 2019 had undertaken the contract of

 development. On 1st July, 2019 the compound wall had collapsed on

 the huts of the labourers in which six persons died and 10 others

 were injured. The investigation reveals that the applicants in

 Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2205 of 2019 were partners of M/s.

 Shree Samartha Construction Group who had taken land bearing Gat

 No. 10/10 Village Ambegaon Budruk, Haveli, Pune for development.

 The huts were eracted for accommodate laborers. They were situated

 at close distance at the compound wall. The contention of the

 applicants is that the growth of trees and shifting of roots in the wall

 had caused the collapse. The investigation indicates that the said

 applicants were having knowledge that the impugned compound

 wall of Sinhagad Technical Education Society is in dangerous

 condition. It is also the case of the prosecution that there were huts

 were installed adjacent to the wall and in spite of fact that the

 laborers have brought to the notice of the said fact to applicants that

 the wall is in dangerous condition and that there is possibility of




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                  ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar              9 of 11          904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 collapse no action was taken.           The statement of the witnesses

 labourers mention that they have stated that they had brought to the

 notice the dilapidated condition of the wall. and possibility that the

 same would collapse on the huts. Although assurances were given

 huts were not shifted to safe location. The applicants in Anticipatory

 Bail Application No. 2205 of 2019 had submitted that wall has

 collapsed due to its condition and seepage of roots and growing of

 trees. In the situation it was expected that instant steps could have

 been taken atleast after condition of wall was brought to their notice.


 10.       As far as the applicant in anticipatory bail application No.

 1868 of 2019 is concerned it is apparent that on the work order

 issued by Sinhagad Technical Education Institute, the wall was

 constructed by him in 2010. It also appears from the statement of

 one of the witness that subsequently the height of the wall was

 increased. The evidence do not disclose that the said applicant had

 any control over the wall after it was constructed. Although the

 technical report mentions that construction was weak, it is relevant

 to note that changes were brought in wall. He cannot be attributed

 knowledge that huts were erected when he is not concerned with

 maintenance. The subsequent contractor who had allegedly carried

 out the extension of the wall shall showed as an accused apparent

 from application forwarded for recording statement under Section




::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019                   ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar                 10 of 11           904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc




 164 of Cr.P.C. filed before the concerned court. In the factual matrix

 of the case is the said applicant can be granted protection under

 Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Prima facie is required under the penal

 provisions.


 11.       However considering the observation herein above and in the

 light of material on record the applicants in Anticipatory Bail

 Application No. 2205 of 2019 are not entitled for grant of

 anticipatory bail.


 12.       Hence, I pass the following order.


                                             ORDER

i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2205 of 2019 is rejected;

ii) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1868 of 2019 is allowed.

iii) The interim order dated 30th August, 2019 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1868 of 2019 is hereby confirmed. In the event of arrest of applicant Sudhir Borkar in C.R. No. 467 of 2019 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Dist. Pune, he be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25000/- with one or ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 ::: Sajakali Jamadar 11 of 11 904-ABA-2205-2019-ABA-1868-2019.doc more sureties in the like amount;

iv) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10.00 am. to 12.00 pm. till filing of charge sheet.

v) Applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 21:24:49 :::