Bombay High Court: In the present case, applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered at NRI Sagari Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b), and 324(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘the 1996 Act’). A Single Judge Bench of R.N. Laddha, J., after noting that a building collapsed and three people lost their lives, stated that a thorough investigation was necessary to uncover the circumstances surrounding the building’s construction and prolonged unauthorized status. The Court rejected the application for pre-arrest bail as the investigation was at a nascent stage.
Background
On 27-07-2024, a four-storey ‘Indira Niwas’ building collapsed and three people succumbed to their injuries at the hospital. The investigation revealed that the building lacked proper authorisation and contravened the provisions of the 1996 Act, and the inquiry revealed that applicant and the co-accused, Sharad Waghmare, had knowingly constructed the building using inferior materials, disregarding its structural integrity, and putting the lives of its residents at risk.
Counsel for applicant submitted that applicant financed the construction of the building in 2009, and his partner, Vijay Gawade, was solely responsible for its construction and management. Applicant owned four flats in the building and denied any involvement in its construction or maintenance and claimed that the actual cause of damage was the ongoing hammer work in the adjacent building.
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent submitted that applicant was responsible for the construction activities, and despite receiving notices from the Corporation to demolish the unauthorised construction, applicant did not take any action. It was submitted that the building’s construction utilized inferior materials, leading to its collapse, which resulted in three fatalities and several injuries.
The Court stated that the building’s collapse resulted from negligence, endangering lives and safety and the Court also took note of applicant’s involvement in construction, financing, and owning four flats, with a Memorandum of Understanding revealing a share in the land. The Court also stated that the flats in the building were rented, and applicant derived benefit therefrom and as a landlord, applicant was responsible for the building’s construction, maintenance, and repairs.
The Court stated that a thorough investigation was necessary to uncover the circumstances surrounding the building’s construction and prolonged unauthorized status. The Court opined that the rising occurrence of unapproved construction projects had a detrimental impact on public infrastructure as it depletes resources and poses a serious risk to public safety. The Court further opined that the absence of proper legal approval and expert consultation during construction, and routine post-construction checks, inevitably leads to catastrophic events like building collapse and the consequences were severe, resulting in loss of property and lives.
The Court relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 and opined that in cases of anticipatory bail, caution was necessary, as granting protection in serious cases, could potentially hinder investigation or lead to miscarriage of justice by allowing tampering with evidence.
The Court after considering that in the present case, three people lost their lives; several others were seriously injured and the investigation was at a nascent stage, rejected application for pre-arrest bail and stated that it was not inclined to exercise its discretion in applicant’s favour.
[Mahesh Motiram Kumbhar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2930, decided on 02-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Shekhar Ingawale, Counsel.
For the Respondent: Yogesh Y Dabke, APP.
