Ahmedabad Flyover Damage: SC Refuses To Grant Anticipatory Bail To Private Firm Directors

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to grant anticipatory bail to the directors of a private firm named as accused in a case filed in connection with a flyover construction in Ahmedabad that was closed for public use due to damage caused by alleged use of substandard material.

A vacation bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JK Maheshwari was hearing a petition filed by four directors of the firm that built the flyover near a bus terminal in Hatkeshwar, challenging an order passed earlier this month by the Gujarat High Court dismissing their applications for anticipatory bail.

“It is not a case for anticipatory bail…Within four years, your bridge is going to collapse. Sorry,” the bench pointed out.

In April 2023, an FIR was filed in the case for alleged offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating).

According to the prosecution, the firm won the tender for the construction of the flyover and allegedly used subpar materials, causing significant damage to it.

The high court noted in its order that the flyover was opened to the public in 2017, but it had to be closed due to damage within four to five years.

These directors had contended before the High Court that the design of the flyover did not allow for the operation of multi axle heavy load vehicles. They claimed that the damage was caused by the use of such vehicles for about three years.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, stated that the bridge was completed in November 2017. According to him, the authorities allowed very heavy traffic on the bridge, and the superstructure of the flyover was damaged as a result of the plying of multi axle heavy vehicles.

“I (directors of firm) am requesting for anticipatory bail. No life has been lost, nothing has happened. My work liability period is also over. I am still willing to repair it if they so desire, there is no problem. There is no fault on my part,” the petitioner counsel stated.

He stated that the petitioners have no criminal history.

After hearing the arguments, the bench stated that it is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

The high court noted in its order that after reviewing the FIR, it appeared that prior to its filing, a detailed audit of the structure was conducted by various independent agencies, and their reports indicated that the quality of the concrete used for construction was questionable.

“Considering these observations, it prima facie appears that sub-standard material was used for construction of flyover in question,” the bench observed.

It further stated that tests conducted by independent agencies did not show that plying of multi axle heavy load vehicles caused the damage.