Court rejects discharge applications by seven accused, including Oreva group MD, in Morbi bridge tragedy

Patel had also cited that the District Collector of Rajkot had first entered into an MoU with Oreva Group for a period of nine years from 2008 to 2017 for maintenance and security management as well as collection of rent of the suspension bridge. Thereafter, the MoU was renewed on March 3, 2022, and eventually a contract for maintenance was given to Devprakash Solutions with the bridge closed for repairs between March 2022 and October 2022.
“Thereafter, on October 26, 2022, the suspension bridge was made open for public after the repair work was over and after their (sub-contractor’s) assurance that the bridge is ready for use. Thereafter, on October 30, 2022, unfortunately the bridge collapsed but the present petitioners are not concerned with the above…” he had stated.

Patel had contended that the Morbi Municipality did not get the strength of the bridge examined by an expert agency as Ajanta Manufacturing (Oreva) “was not asked to get the bridge examined” as it “was not part of the contract MoU”. Similar petitions were also filed by the managers, ticket collectors and security personnel working in the Oreva Group at the time of the incident.

Advocate Utkarsh Dave, appearing for the association of the victims’ families, put forth an argument that Patel and other employees of Oreva could not be discharged from the case as “knowledge and intent” were present in their conduct.
The victims referred to the drunken driving case of Sanjeev Nanda that claimed seven lives in 1999 in Delhi and the case of Alister Pereira (2006 Mumbai hit-and-run) to argue about the “knowledge” and “intent” of the accused in the case, whose “recklessness, negligence and deliberate actions” led to the tragic mishap. “The Oreva Company, Morbi, had been well aware about the dilapidated condition of the bridge and therefore, the actions undertaken by the custodians of the bridge could well be said to have possessed knowledge which is in essence to constitute offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860…,” they contended in their argument.
Dave had further stated, “The accused seeks to submit that the tragic incident had been a result of contributory negligence on the part of the huge mass of crowd gathered on the suspension bridge at the time of the incident…”

Opposing the discharge applications, the victims contended before the court that “the recklessness, negligence and deliberate actions of the accused persons despite the knowledge of precarious and sensitive condition of the bridge before its reopening… and further permitting huge crowd to gather had led into the tragic mishap…”
They further pointed out, “The said incident had taken place during the Diwali break, when huge crowds had gathered to view the marvellous suspension bridge, with about 400 individuals being permitted to enter upon the same at once all at the behest of the accused persons…”

Speaking to The Indian Express, Advocate Dave said that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in its probe had found that even the grille of the bridge had allegedly not been changed during the repairs and no crowd management had been done on the day of the accident. “There are letters from the Oreva management to the district authorities, reminding them that the bridge is dilapidated and will collapse. Yet, when the repair work was undertaken, the SIT has stated that not even the bars were changed… On the day of the incident, over 3,000 tickets were sold, whereas the bridge rules clearly permit only 10 persons at a time… This was never a case of discharge, all accused including the main accused, should be given rigorous imprisonment for life.”

In April, the Supreme Court issued notice to the state of Gujarat and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea filed by the victims of the Morbi bridge tragedy, seeking a central agency investigation in the case and expressing “loss of faith” in the investigation carried out by the Gujarat police so far. Dave said that the trial in the case is expected to commence in June, beginning with framing of charges against the accused.