Huge crowd rushing to Morbi suspension bridge and swinging it contributed to its collapse: HC told

Ahmedabad: A huge crowd of people rushing to the Morbi suspension bridge and swinging it contributed to its collapse and resulted in the death of 135 people, CMD of Oreva Group that operated and maintained the ill-fated bridge told the Gujarat High Court in his bail application.

The British-era suspension bridge on the Machchhu river in Morbi town of Gujarat collapsed on October 30 last year, killing 135 persons, including children, and injuring 56 others.

Oreva Group CMD Jaysukh Patel is the main accused, and has been behind bars since January 31, 2023. His regular bail pleas were rejected by lower courts.

In his submission for regular bail before the court of Justice Divyesh Joshi, Patel said Oreva Group's employees permitted the crowd of people to rush to the bridge as it was a holiday.

The crowd swung the bridge beyond its strength and it collapsed, he told the court.

'Even if there was some lacuna on the part of the company in the repairs of the British-era bridge, there was no knowledge that a huge crowd would rush to it on that fateful evening and cause its collapse,' lawyer Nirupam Nanavaty representing Patel submitted before the court.

The operation and maintenance of the suspension bridge, which collapsed on October 30, 2022 was not a profit-making venture for Oreva Group, he said.

'For this company, even selling 100 tickets at the rate of Rs 50 every day is of no consequence. They (local authorities) wanted us to maintain the heritage bridge as the municipality was not in a position to do so, and the collector insisted. It is not that I am running away or passing the bucks,' he said.

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.

Having spent around 10 plus months in custody, the petitioner is no longer required to be kept in judicial custody any more, he argued.

'The trial will take its own time. He can be put to any terms that the court may impose in the event of granting him bail,' Nanavaty added.

He also argued against section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under which the accused has been charged and which deals with rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

The accused cannot be kept behind bars as an undertrial beyond a certain point even when the court appreciates the agony and anguish of the victims, he said.

'Had a proper maintenance checklist been prepared, things would have been done in a better manner. But you cannot extend culpability to the extent of section 304,' he said.

Opposing his 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 shocks the conscience of society.

'There have been cases where people have been punished for 5-7 years under section 304. The question is whether this incident shocked the conscience of society? If yes, then it will be befitting the cause of justice if he is not released on bail,' he said in his submission.

A total of 10 people were named as accused in the case, including Patel, two managers of his firm and two sub-contractors who had repaired the bridge, three security guards and two ticket booking clerks.

They 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). PTI KA NP