The Gujarat government on Wednesday stated that the decision to grant bail to Oreva Group CMD Jaysukh Patel in the Morbi bridge collapse case of October 2022 would be left to the discretion of the Gujarat High Court.
Justice Divyesh Joshi reserved his order following submissions from the petitioner, relatives of the victims, and the government.
The Morbi bridge collapse occurred on October 30, 2022, in Gujarat, resulting in the tragic deaths of 135 individuals, and injuring 56.
Jaysukh Patel was implicated in the criminal case due to his company’s responsibility for maintaining and operating the British-era bridge.
During the court proceedings, Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin informed the court that the investigator had reported on September 18 that all aspects of the incident had been thoroughly investigated.
Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin emphasized that the court should exercise discretion in deciding a bail application, citing Supreme Court judgments provided by both the victim and applicant sides.
The accused in the case include Oreva chairman and managing director Jaysukh Patel, two managers of his company, two sub-contractors involved in bridge repairs, three security guards, and two ticket booking clerks.
While six of them were released on bail, Jaysukh Patel, the manager, and the two proprietors of Devprakash Solutions, the firm responsible for repairs, remain in judicial custody.
The accused face charges under Indian Penal Code sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 336 (act endangering human life), and 338 (causing grievous hurt by doing rash or negligent acts).
Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin highlighted factors the court may consider when deciding the bail plea, including the duration of the petitioner’s imprisonment, completion of the investigation, the number of witnesses, the accused’s status as a businessman, and the absence of any risk of absconding.
Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin concluded by stating, “Ultimately it is the discretion of the honourable court. I leave it to the discretion of the honourable court.”
Victims have filed applications seeking the addition of certain offenses, and Amin noted that, as charges were yet to be framed, either side could apply for adding or removing offenses.
Nirupam Nanavaty, Jaysukh Patel’s lawyer, argued that a large crowd rushing onto the bridge contributed to its collapse, and even if Oreva Group had deficiencies in bridge maintenance, they were unaware of the massive crowd gathering on that evening.
Nirupam Nanavaty urged the court to consider Jaysukh Patel’s tenure in custody, asserting that he was not required to be further incarcerated.
Nirupam Nanavaty also contended against charging the accused under section 304 of the IPC.
In opposition to bail for Jaysukh Patel, victims’ lawyer Rahul Sharma expressed concern about potential tampering with witness records and emphasized the gravity of the accused’s charges.
