Gujarat High Court
Ashatai Amrutrao Patil vs State Of Gujarat on 28 August, 2014
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 11960
of 2014
================================================================
ASHATAI AMRUTRAO PATIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR NIKUNT K RAVAL,
ADVOCATE for the Applicant
MR PARTH M RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant
MR RC KODEKAR APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 28/08/2014
ORAL ORDER
[1] By way of present application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-172 of 2014 registered with Umra Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 304 Part-II, 337, 338 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
[2] The brief facts emerge from the record as under:-
[2.1] That the Surat Municipal Corporation intended to construct a flyover in city of Surat from the area known as Athwalines towards village known as Pal. The planning of construction of the said bridge was started way back in the year 2006. The Executive Engineers and Page 1 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER other Engineers of Surat Municipal Corporation met several Architects / Designers for making design of the said flyover since it was a huge project covering about more than 600 meters and having width was varying 7 meters to 8.7 meters M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates was selected as the designer for construction of the said bridge in the year 2008, since M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates was designated consultant of the Surat Municipal Corporation since 2006.
[2.2] Subsequent to the submission of design prepared on behalf of M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates, the Surat Municipal Corporation floated tenders and ultimately one M/s.Rachna Construction Company was awarded the work contract and a contract agreement was entered into between them. One Spectrum Techno Consultant Private Limited was appointed as Project Manager Consultant (P.M.C.) to supervise the entire construction work and ensure that the flyover takes place as per the standard.
[2.3] As per the design provided by the Associates, the Contractor started construction work of the said bridge under the supervision of Spectrum Techno Consultant Private Limited and several Engineers of Surat Municipal Corporation. There were about 68 spans (sections) of the said bridge. Out of 68 spans, the slab work between span Nos.64 and 65 having sharp carve was carried out on 25.05.2014. On 10.06.2014 i.e. within a period of 15 days from carrying out slab work construction, (the height of which was 40 feet), under the instruction and supervision of several agencies, at about 8 a.m., staging plates which were applied to the slab were removed and at that time the entire slab collapsed and 16 workers were buried under the said slab. Out of those 16 workers, 10 workers have died on the spot and 6 sustained major or minor injuries.
[2.4] Pursuant to the said incident, the Gujarat Engineering Research Page 2 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER Institution (GERI), Vadodara was consulted and asked for inspection of the site. The highest authority of the Surat Municipal Corporation provided all details about bridge to the said Institution which is an expert, including the debris and material used in the construction etc. The designing of bridge were sent to one Sarar Vallabhbhai National Institute and Technology Surat (SVNIT) for its verification. A detailed report was submitted by SVNIT in which it was found that the design of the bridge itself was a faulty one. A report with regard to material used in the construction work of the said bridge was received from GERI which has found not as per the standards and the strength required. The said slab was also not as per the requirement.
[2.5] Having received details report from GERI, the Police Inspector of Umra Police Station lodged an FIR on 03.07.2014 against 18 accused including the present applicant who has prepared and approved the design of the bridge, partners of M/s.Rachna Construction, Engineers who were supervised for Spectrum Techno Consultant and Private Limited and Deputy Engineer and Engineers of the Surat Municipal Corporation for the offences punishable under sections 304 Part II, 337, 338 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
[3] Having come to know of FIR being filed against the present applicant, he filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.1891 of 2014 under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat. The said application came to be rejected vide judgment and order dated 25.07.2014 by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. Hence, this application.
[4] Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that the applicant is Assistant Manager of M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates which is a private limited company. The said company is in the profession of designing of huge projects Page 3 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER and the applicant is associated since 2010. By taking me through the details about the company and work carried out by it, he would submit that the company has designed big bridges in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat etc., however, no complaint with regard to the design has been made out in past. By taking me through a communication dated 19.04.2013 sent on behalf of associates addressed to Shri B. K. Gadhia, Executive Engineer (Bridge Cell), Surat Municipal Corporation, he would submit that the designs / drawings of the impugned bridge were sent for approval and a request was made that the work order may be issued for the same. He would submit that neither any work order has been issued nor any amount has been paid for designing the bridge. He would submit that ordinarily, for constructing such bridge, proof consultant is required to be appointed to cross check the design which has not been done in the present case and the Corporation had started construction work of the bridge. In response to the communication dated 19.04.2014, the Corporation requested the company to send the drawings and designs of pile foundation, however, without waiting for any response, the work is carried out by the Corporation for which the applicant is not responsible. Therefore, the applicant cannot be held liable for collapse of a slab.
[5] In the alternative, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that after submission of the designs / drawings of the bridge, the liability of the applicant is over. He would further submit that as per the report of the GERI, as reported in the FIR, the material which has been used by other accused is below standard and is not properly supervised by other co-accused as alleged in the FIR and, therefore, the applicant cannot be made liable for the offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that the ingredients of sections 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code are not made out, since, unfortunate death occurred in the incident cannot Page 4 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER be treated as culpable homicide.
[6] By relying upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, he would submit that fault lies with the construction company and the supervisory company who has committed the breach of the contract entered into between the Surat Municipal Corporation and construction company and Project Management Consultant and the Engineers of the Surat Municipal Corporation.
[7] By relying upon a decision in case of Siddhrama Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that, since the applicant is not a hardcore criminal and there are no chances of the applicant of absconding, the applicant may be released on bail. He would submit that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency. He would further submit that since the accused relied upon the documentary evidence, there is no need for custodial interrogation and, therefore, he may be released on bail in case of arrest. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of Sushil Ansal Vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 173 (popularly known as Uphaar cinema case). In my opinion, the facts of the case of Sushil Ansal (supra) is not applicable in the present case since the case was decided after completion of trial and leading the evidence of witnesses.
[8] Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the Investigating Officer Shri Haresh Dudhat, Assistant Commissioner of Police, "E" Division, Surat has filed detailed affidavit and opposed this application.
[9] Mr.R. C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by taking me through the evidence so far collected in absence of arrest Page 5 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER of almost all the accused, has vehemently opposed this application and submit that the applicant has committed serious crime in which 10 poor labourers have lost their lives and other six have sustained major or minor injuries. He would submit that the report of GERI and SVNIT is very clear about the reasons for collapse of a bridge. As per his submission, the construction of a bridge can be divided into three parts; (I) designing of bridge, (ii) construction of a bridge in which standard material is to be used for such construction and (iii) supervision by concerned Engineer whether the construction company is carrying out the work using the material as per the norms or not. He would submit that as per the report of SVNIT, the bridge was designed in such a manner that the center of gravity was instable. The slab between span No.64 and 65 which was not properly carved out which is required to be done by the designer. He would submit that when the design itself was a faulty one prepared and approved by highly skilled expert like the Architectures and Designers, which has been collapsed even before opening for public and, therefore, it cannot be said that they had no knowledge about effect of faulty design.
[10] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by taking me through the statement of one Akshay Jagdish Pandya, who is Executive Engineer in the Surat Municipal Corporation, would further submit that the Incharge Engineer of Surat Municipal Corporation had been meetings with the highly skilled Architecture / Designer of M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates on number of occasions since 2005-2006. M/s.S N. Bhobe and Associates has demanded an amount of Rs.1.30 Crores towards consultancy fees and produced bill of Rs.83,81,730/- out of which an amount of Rs.80,63,300/- plus service tax has already paid by Surat Municipal Corporation to the said Associates. He would submit that with regard to the collapsed part of the bridge, the Corporation had received a letter dated 02.01.2014 along with four drawings prepared, verified and approved by a member of associates (others Page 6 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER are co-accused in the matter) and, therefore, it is not true that the applicant has not received any amount for approved designs or not sent any drawings / designs. He would submit that when the length of bridge was more than 600 meters having width raising 7 to 8 meters and height 40 feet, utmost precautions were required to be undertaken before preparing such designs and drawings which is to be used for public at large of city of Surat having dense population. He would submit that 10 poor labourers have lost their lives and prima facie he has committed an offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and other offences. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.
[11] I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. At the outset, I would like to state that one of the partners of Rachna Construction, Civil Engineers of Spectrum Spectrum Techno Consultant Private Limited and the Engineers of Surat Municipal Corporation have filed different applications under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure code before this Court which were heard today by this Court along with the present application. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the applicant in those mattes, at the end of arguments, did not press the applications and without inviting any reasoned order, withdrew the same.
[12] Though, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
- State has argued the case at length against all these accused including the present applicant alleging that all the accused have failed to act in such a manner and it is combined offence committed by all the accused which resulted into death of 10 poor labourers and they abetted to each other, this Court would not like to make any observations against those persons. Since those applicants withdrew their applications without inviting any reasons from this Court.
[13] As far as the present applicant is concerned, she is the Assistant Manager of M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates. The design with Page 7 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER regard to the collapsed slab which is having a sharp curve, were sent on 02.01.2014, were approved by her. She is a final authority in the said company and, therefore, she could not shurk from her liability either to the person who has prepared this design or examined the same and placed before her for approval. She cannot shurk her liability for approving faulty design. As stated hereinabove, subsequent to collapse of the said curved slab, the designs, provides by M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates, were sent to Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute and Technology Surat for verifying the same. The relevant part of the report of SVNIT reads as under:
1. The Geometry of the curved voided slab deck, considering centre of gravity, itself is unstable. Normally as per basic theory centre of gravity of curved line (deck) is outside bridge deck, and create large over turning moment.
2. The curved box girder deck analysed and designed as equivalent straight span bridge deck. Actually detailed analysis for curvature required considering differential prestressing forces, thermal expansion, prestress losses, torsional moment, influence line, bending moment and shear force etc.
3. Type and design of bearing, shown in drawing for all four bearings, are same as other straight span, and special consideration for curved span are not consider by designer.
Negative reaction developed at inner bearings, due to effect of curvature, are not accounted for by designer.
4. Normally on curved Box Girder, both the bearings at same end are not equidistance from central line of box girder deck. In this case it is at equidistance.
Some more findings are recorded by the said institution. However, since this Court has not dealt the aspect with regard to Page 8 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER construction of the bridge, the same is not produced.
[14] I have also gone through the statement of Akshay Pandya, Executive Engineer of Surat Municipal Corporation in which he has stated the designs with regard to the said part of the bridge received on 02.01.2014, which has been approved by the present applicant and amount of Rs.80,63,300/- has been received by M/s.S. N. Bhobe and Associates, it cannot be said that any amount has been received by the applicant.
[15] Prima facie in my opinion there is total lethargy on the part of the designers which have played with the lives of the number of persons because of faulty design. The most important part of the bridge has been collapsed even before it is put in actual use for public at large. Since the bridge has collapsed at 8.00 a.m. in the morning when the traffic passing under the said under construction was less, the causality was not on higher side. In my opinion, the design of such huge bridge having 40 feet of height is one of the most important aspects since the same was meant for use for public at large. I am of the view that the applicant cannot claim any special treatment being a lady. She is an expert in her subject and is preparing the designs.
[16] While hearing of the bail application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in absence of sufficient material, at this stage, this Court would not like to express any opinion whether there was lack of knowledge on the part of designers or not. However, the report of SVNIT, prima faice, suggests that the design was faulty from all angles. I have also gone through the other statements of the witnesses which I would not like to discuss the same at this stage since the investigation is at the preliminary stage.
[17] Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is meritless and the same is dismissed. Rule is Page 9 of 10 R/CR.MA/11960/2014 ORDER discharged.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) vijay Page 10 of 10