The single judge bench of the Bombay High Court observed that the rising occurrence of unapproved construction projects has a detrimental impact on public infrastructure. It depletes resources and poses a serious risk to public safety. The absence of proper legal approval and expert consultation during construction, as well as routine post-construction checks, inevitably leads to catastrophic events like building collapse. The consequences are severe, resulting in loss of property and lives. Once a life is lost, it is an irreversible tragedy. The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant involved in the construction of a building without permission and using substandard materials which resulted in the building collapse.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the four-storey building suddenly collapsed trapping three individuals, who later succumbed to their injuries at the hospital. Thereafter, it was revealed that the building lacked proper authorisation and contravened the provisions of the MRTP Act. Furthermore, it came to know that the applicant and co-accused had knowingly constructed the building using inferior materials, disregarding its structural integrity and putting the lives of its residents at risk. The present pre-arrest bail application is filed by the applicant in connection with the case registered for offences punishable under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b), and 324(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’).
Contentions of the Applicant:
The Applicant contended that the applicant solely financed the construction of the building and was not responsible for its construction and management. It was furthermore contended that the actual cause of damage is the hammer work that is going on in the adjacent building.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that the applicant was responsible for the construction activities, and despite receiving notices from the Corporation to demolish the unauthorized construction, the applicant failed to take any action. It was furthermore contended that the inferior material was used in the construction of the building. Also, considering the severity of the offense, custodial interrogation is required.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that to determine the facts surrounding the building's construction and extended unauthorized status, an extensive investigation is required. Unapproved construction projects are becoming more common, which is detrimental to public infrastructure. It destroys resources and puts everyone's safety in grave danger. Catastrophic incidents like building collapse are invariably caused by the lack of appropriate legal approval, expert consultation during construction, and routine post-construction checks. There will be a loss of life and property as a result of the dire consequences. A life lost is a tragedy that cannot be reversed.
The court furthermore observed that granting anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. While regular bail is generally considered the norm, the same principle does not apply to anticipatory bail.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar.
The court noted that the investigation is at the nascent stage and the offense is of grave nature wherein three people lost their lives.
Based on these considerations, the court refused to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court rejected the application.
Case Title: Mahesh Motiram Kumbhar V. The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Laddha
Case No.: Anticipatory Bail Application No.2432 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Shekhar Ingawale
Advocate for the State: Mr Yogesh Y Dabke
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :