Ahmedabad: The Gujarat government stated on Wednesday told the court that the decision to grant bail to Oreva Group CMD Jaysukh Patel in the October 2022 Morbi bridge collapse case is at the discretion of the Gujarat High Court.

Justice Divyesh Joshi reserved his order after hearing submissions from the petitioner, relatives of the victims, and the government. The collapse of a suspension bridge on the Machchhu river in Morbi town on October 30, 2022, resulted in the deaths of 135 people, including women and children, and injuries to 56.

Jaysukh Patel, accused in the criminal case related to the tragedy, was responsible for maintaining and operating the British-era bridge. Additional advocate general Mitesh Amin informed the court that the investigator confirmed the completion of all aspects of the probe into the incident on September 18.

Amin stated that a bail application cannot be decided based on a judgment, and it is always at the discretion of the court hearing the plea. Ten persons are accused in the case, with six released on bail. The remaining, including Patel, are still in judicial custody.

The accused face charges under Indian Penal Code sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 336 (act endangering human life), and 338 (causing grievous hurt by doing rash or negligent acts). Amin emphasized that the court, in deciding the bail plea, may consider various factors, including the duration of the petitioner’s incarceration, the completion of the investigation, the number of witnesses, the accused being a businessman, and the absence of a possibility of absconding.

He left the decision to the discretion of the honorable court. Victims have filed applications in the sessions court seeking the addition of certain offenses, and Amin noted that as charges were yet to be framed, either side could apply for adding or removing any offense.

Patel’s lawyer, Nirupam Nanavaty, argued that a large crowd rushing onto the bridge also contributed to the collapse, and Oreva Group had no prior knowledge of such a gathering. Having spent over ten months in custody, Nanavaty argued that the petitioner was not required to be incarcerated further, and the trial would take its time.

He opposed the accused being charged under section 304 of the IPC. In opposition to bail for Patel, the victims’ lawyer Rahul Sharma cited the strong possibility of witness tampering and the seriousness of the accused offense. DeshGujarat