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

They accused person been charged nether Indian Penal Code Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 308 (attempting culpable homicide), 336 (act endangering beingness oregon idiosyncratic information of others) 337 (causing wounded by enactment endangering beingness oregon idiosyncratic information of others), 338 (causing grievous wounded by enactment endangering beingness oregon idiosyncratic information of others) and 114 (abettor contiguous erstwhile offence is committed).

Last year, Narendrabhai Parmar, whose girl was among the deceased and Pratapsinh Jadeja, besides from 1 of the victims’s families had moved abstracted applications earlier the Morbi territory and sessions court. In the exertion moved done advocator Rahul Sharma, Parmar had sought the court’s absorption to constabulary for further probe probe into the lawsuit and summation of IPC Section 302 (murder) against the accused.

In his exertion filed connected July 19, 2023, Parmar alleged that the declaration for operations and attraction (O&M) of the span was awarded to APML done Morbi territory collector but “neither the collector was listed arsenic a witnesser successful the complaint expanse nor the APML — the steadfast which had the custody of the historical span — was arraigned arsenic an accused”.

Sharma told the tribunal that APML had repeatedly written to the collector that the span “required repairs and not doing truthful tin endanger lives and yet the span was opened for the nationalist connected October 26, 2022 without repairing a damaged conception of 1 of its main cables and thus, the accused and the institution should beryllium booked for execution also”.

In different exertion moved by Jadeja done his advocator Utkushth Dave, it was alleged that Oreva Group was charging summons rates “higher than approved” by the Morbi municipality. Thus, Jadeja said “Oreva not lone breached its declaration with Morbi municipality by printing tickets of higher look worth but besides indulged successful forgery”.

However, AMPL managing manager Jaysukh Bhalodiya alias Jaysukh Patel’s advocator opposed the duplicate applications. “Does this tribunal person the powers to nonstop the probe serviceman to adhd Section 302? The reply to this question, arsenic per law, is successful negative. Thus, the supplication of the applicant is not maintainable successful the oculus of the law”.

“This precise tribunal had rejected a akin exertion filed by Narendrabhai Nanjibhai Parmar and a situation to that bid is pending earlier the honourable High Court. Therefore, this tribunal does not person powerfulness to adjudicate this matter,” the bid delivered by PDJ Mahida records Desai arsenic having submitted.

Desai is besides quoted arsenic having argued that Jadeja’s exertion besides falls extracurricular the purview of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and that of the sessions tribunal arsenic the exertion didn’t specify what grounds was to beryllium collected during further probe and what would beryllium the intent of specified probe.