Morbi Bridge collapse tragedy: Court rejects plea to add murder charge against accused

However, Narendrabhai Parmar, whose daughter was among the 135 victims and Pratapsinh Jadeja, also from the victims’s families had moved separate applications in the district and sessions court of Morbi last year. In his application moved through his advocate Rahul Sharma, Parmar had sought the court’s direction to police for further investigation in the Jhulto Pul bridge collapse and invoke IPC Section 302 (murder) against the accused. In his application filed on July 19, 2023, Parmar alleged that the contract of operations and maintenance (O&M) of the historic Jhulto Pul was awarded to APML through district collector of Morbi but neither the collector was listed as a witness in the charge-sheet nor the APML, the firm which had the custody of the historic bridge was arraigned as an accused.

Sharma told the court that APML had repeatedly written to the collector that Jhulto Pul required repairs and that not doing so can endanger lives of visitors and yet it threw the bridge open to visitors on October 26, 2022 without repairing a damaged section of one of its main cables and thus, the accused and the company should be booked for murder also.

In another application moved by Jadeja through his advocate NR Jadeja, Jadeja alleged that Oreva Group was charging ticket rates higher than approved by the Morbi municipality, the owner of the suspension bridge by printing tickets of higher face value and issuing them to visitors. Thus, Jadeja said Oreva not only breached its contract with Morbi municipality by printing tickets of higher face value but also indulged in forgery.

However, AMPL managing director Jaysukh Bhalodiya alias Jaysukh Patel’s advocate opposed the twin applications. “Does this court have the powers to direct the investigation officer to add Section 302? The answer to this question, as per law, is in negative. Thus, the prayer of the applicant is not maintainable in the eye of the law. This very court had rejected a similar application filed by Narendrabhai Nanjibhai Parmar… and a challenge to that order is pending before the High Court. Therefore, this court does not have power to adjudicate this matter,” the order delivered by PDJ Mahida records Desai as having submitted.

Desai is also quoted as having argued that Jadeja’s application also falls outside the purview of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and that of the Sessions court as the application didn’t specify what evidence was to be collected during further investigation and what would be the purpose of such further investigation.

Special public prosecutor (PP) of the case, Vijay Jani also opposed the applications by citing objections raised by police which said that no court had made any adverse remarks about the investigation and that meant that the probe was proper and just. “Additionally, no element of offence under Section 302 are present in the instant case and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed.”

The court eventually rejected the two applications on technical grounds that victims can engage private advocates only to assist public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor with the permission of the court and can’t move such applications by bypassing PP or assisant PP. The court observed that under CrPC Sections 301 and 301(2), private advocate engaged by victim or witness can make written arguments once evidence is closed.

“…If a victim or complainant or witness wants to make any submission, he has to do so through learned PP or investigating officer. In the instant case, Application No.5 (by Parmar) and 73 (by Jadeja) have been moved directly by appointing private advocates. This court believes that they don’t have authority and power to do so,” PDJ Mahida noted in his order which became available on Friday. “In such circumstances, neither the applicants who have moved applications No.5 and No.73 have the right to move such applications nor their learned advocates have rights to argue over such applications. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this court, these applications are not maintainable in the eye of the law…”

“The applicants were misusing the process of law to delay trial in the case and influence bail applications. The court rightfully rejected their applications on technical grounds, discuss merits of the applications and rejected them on that count also,” Desai told the Indian Express.