Morbi Bridge Collapse: Gujarat HC Rejects Bail Plea Of Jaysukh Patel

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday has rejected the regular bail plea of Oreva Group CMD Jaysukh Patel, the main accused in the October 2022 Morbi suspension bridge collapse which claimed 135 lives.

“The application is dismissed,” Justice Divyesh Joshi stated while denying bail to Patel, who has been behind bars since his surrender in January this year after being named as the main accused in the case.

Earlier, his regular bail pleas were rejected by the lower courts.

Patel’s firm was responsible for the operation and maintenance of the British-era suspension bridge on the Machchhu river in Gujarat’s Morbi town which collapsed on October 30 last year, killing 135 people, including children, and injuring 56 others.

Patel and 9 others have been charged under IPC sections 304, 308, 336, 337 and 338.

With Patel’s bail plea being rejected, 4 out of the 10 accused in the case are behind bars, including the Oreva Group’s manager, and 2 proprietors of Devprakash Solutions, the firm which carried out the repair work.

The Gujarat government had not opposed Patel’s bail plea, leaving it for the court to decide on it.

During an earlier hearing, Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin told the HC that the investigation officer informed a sessions court on September 18 this year that all facets and features of the probe into the bridge collapse were covered and nothing was left out.

Arguing for bail, Patel’s lawyer Nirupam Nanavaty told the court that the operation and maintenance of the bridge wasn’t a profit-making venture for the Oreva Group.

He stated that the Oreva Group’s employees permitted the crowd of people to rush to the bridge as it was a holiday.

He stated in the submission, “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.”

Opposing Patel’s plea, the victims’ lawyer, Rahul Sharma, stated that 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 shocked the conscience of society.