The collapse of the suspension bridge over the Machchhu river on October 30 last year had killed 135 people, including 55 children. (Express File Photo) The Gujarat High Court Friday granted bail to an Oreva Group employee who was among the accused lodged in jail in the Morbi bridge collapse case.
Dineshkumar Dave, a manager with the Oreva Group who was supervising the repair work of the bridge, has become the sixth to be granted bail of the total 10 accused of culpable homicide.
The collapse of the suspension bridge over the Machchhu river on October 30 last year had killed 135 persons, including 55 children.
The court of Justice Nirzar Desai took into account that five others — two ticket clerks and three security guards — have already been released on bail. The court also noted that it was unlikely that the trial would commence anytime soon given there were applications pending before a Morbi sessions court for adjudication.
It also noted that though Dave is designated a manager, he was drawing a salary of only Rs 1,130 per day and was only following Oreva Group managing director Jaysukh Patel’s instructions. Jaysukh, too, is a key accused in the case and continues to be behind bars.
Meanwhile, the prosecution as well as the victims had opposed Dave’s bail plea. Representing Morbi Tragedy Victim Association comprising the next of kin of 110 of the deceased, advocate Rahul Sharma, who was formerly an IPS officer, submitted before the court that the investigation carried out has not been “in a proper manner”. Listing 357 witnesses in the chargesheet would only indicate a large number of witnesses but some are family members of the same victim and hence, at the stage of trial, there is a possibility that the number of witnesses the prosecution may choose to examine would be much less compared to the figure shown before the court, he stated.
In his verbal submission, Sharma pointed out the duplication of witnesses and added that it can only indicate a delay in the trial that would weaken the case.
Sharma also submitted that statements of some of the witnesses reveal that Dave and his colleague Deepak Parekh were supervising the repair works. According to the submission, Dave was helping Parekh who was also another manager at Oreva Group.
It was Parekh who participated in meetings with authorities and hence, it was the joint responsibility for both to carry out proper supervision. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to perform his duty that resulted in the tragic incident, Sharma submitted.