scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Wednesday, March 03, 2021

Second bail plea of Nagpada building owner rejected

The court also took into consideration the submission of the intervenor that a kin of the accused had threatened the victims’ relatives and hence, there is a possibility of tampering with evidence

By: Express News Service | Mumbai |
January 29, 2021 9:17:43 pm
Nagpada building owner bail pleaThe building that collapsed in Nagpada (file)

A SESSIONS court rejected the second bail application of the owner of the Nagpada building that collapsed in August, leading to two deaths. The owner, Gufran Qureshi, applied for the bail after police filed a chargesheet in the case following the rejection of his first bail plea November.

Qureshi claimed that the contractor, who was carrying out repairs, was hired by the occupants of the building and the work began without him being informed. He also submitted that the building couldn’t be repaired as it was a over 100-year-old structure and the redevelopment stalled due to an order passed by a small causes court.

On August 27, Noorbanu Qureshi (70) and her granddaughter, Arisha (12), died when a portion of a toilet block at the Mishra chawl building in Nagpada collapsed. Prosecution and intervenor, on behalf of the victims represented by lawyer Zain Shroff, opposed the application that demolition work began in the building from the first floor which led to the toilet’s collapse on the two adjacent rooms where the victims were residing.

“The repairs/demolition work started without taking any precautions though the accused was aware of the building’s condition and also of the adjacent residential rooms. He knew the two persons were present in the rooms. These facts infer that the accused had the knowledge of the possibility of the toilet’s collapse due to repair or demolition and death of the residents in the two rooms,” the court said.

It rejected the contention of the accused that he cannot be booked on charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 II) of the Indian Penal Code. The court also took into consideration the submission of the intervenor that a kin of the accused had threatened the victims’ relatives and hence, there is a possibility of tampering with evidence.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Mumbai News, download Indian Express App.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement