Ramesh Vasudeo Inamdar vs State Of Maharashtra
2013 Latest Caselaw 263 Bom

     sbw                                         1/6                                2.ba1354.13


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                   
                    CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1354 OF 2013




                                                          
     Ramesh Vasudeo Inamdar                                        ...Applicant

             vs.

     State of Maharashtra                                          ...Respondent




                                                         
     Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Ravindra Bhat for the
     Applicant.
     Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent-State.




                                            
     Mr. Shishir Hiray, Spl. PP. in CR No.I-63/2013 & Sessions
     Case No.17/13 at Thane present in Court.
                        
                                          CORAM        : A. R. JOSHI, J.

                                          DATE         : 3rd December, 2013

     P.C. :-
      

     1]        Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant.                              Also

     heard learned APP for the State.                     This is the application
   

preferred by the applicant-original accused No.13 for grant

of bail only on the ground of non filing of the charge sheet

within the statutory period of 60 days so far as the initial

charges levelled against the present applicant along with

other co-accused. For this purpose, it is pointed out on

behalf of the applicant that, initial offence levelled

against the applicant along with other co-accused is only

under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and only on

29th April, 2013 the offence punishable under Section 467 is

inserted in the charge sheet papers. In order to appreciate

these arguments, the case of the prosecution in nutshell can

sbw 2/6 2.ba1354.13

be mentioned. The facts of the present matter are very

peculiar in nature inasmuch as it is a matter of collapse of

building at Mumbra, District Thane on 4 th April, 2013 wherein

about seven storey building, probably under construction,

still occupied upto 6th floors, collapsed causing death of 74

persons and injury to 62 persons. The number of casualties

speak for seriousness of the said matter. However, so far as

the present application is concerned, much details as to in

what manner the building was constructed, how hurriedly the

seven storey structure was erected may not be detailed as the

present

application is not on the merits of the case as

against the present applicant-accused No.13. It is preferred

under Section 167 of Cr.P.C.

2] The present applicant-accused No.13 is an employee of

Thane Municipal Corporation. He is apparently a Deputy

Engineer working in the particular Zone where the said mishap

occurred at Mumbra. Allegedly, there was duty casted upon

the present applicant along with other co-accused-engineers

of municipal Corporation to keep a watch on the illegal

constructions and to take remedial measures so as to see all

the rules and regulations of the municipal corporation are

obeyed and no illegal structure come up. At this stage, it

must be mentioned that specifically it is the case on behalf

of the present applicant as spelt out during the argument

that the applicant was the Deputy Engineer and was given the

work of demolition and not in fact to keep watch on the

sbw 3/6 2.ba1354.13

illegal construction and to see that the illegal construction

should not come up. Again on this aspect, it is the

submission on behalf of the State that the present applicant

is one of the group officers who were supposed to do their

duty to see that illegal construction shall not come up in a

particular area without there being any sanctions from the

municipal corporation. Whatever it might be the present

position stands, according to the present applicant initially

offence of 304 was charged against him and only on 29 th April,

2013 Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code was inserted. It

is strongly

submitted on behalf of the applicant that

apparently it is still the case of prosecution that present

applicant was involved in fabrication of false evidence or in

anyway having his hand in the matter of offence which will

attract the punishment under Section 467 of the Indian Penal

Code. By submitting this, it is the stand on behalf of the

applicant that the time limit is envisaged under Section

167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr. P.C., being 60 days from starting of

investigation, within which charge sheet should be filed,

otherwise accused is entitled for bail.

3] As against this, it is submitted on behalf of the

State that though initially the offence was spelt out as

under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, till the end of

trial it cannot be said whether material on record will

attract Part-I or Part-II of Section 304. Simplicitor in

Section 304 is required to be accepted at this stage and than

sbw 4/6 2.ba1354.13

considering the punishment for the offence in Part-I being

life imprisonment, limit of 60 days for filing charge sheet

is not attracted, however, as per provisions of Section

167(2)(a)(i) 90 days time limit is there for filing of the

charge sheet by the investigating agency. On this aspect,

there is no dispute that the charge sheet has been filed

beyond 60 days of starting the investigation but prior to

completion of 90 days. The question remains whether in the

present application a distinction can be made as to the

addition of Section 467 or the acceptance of Section 304

Part-I or Part-II can be construed vis-a-vis a particular

accused or whether the application of such Section is to be

construed qua a case/crime number. The plain reading of the

Section 167 do not contemplate the segregation of accused

persons as to the applicability of any particular penal

Section qua particular accused but the Section mandate for

ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence

punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment

for a term of not less than 10 years.

4] At this stage, it cannot be construed that the

application of Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is not

with respect to the present applicant so far as the penal

under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is claimed by the applicant.

5] Apart from the above, on the applicability or

otherwise of Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, it is

sbw 5/6 2.ba1354.13

straneously argued on behalf of the State placing reliance on

statements of two persons both are the supervisors of the

said collapsed building, which are forming part of the charge

sheet. The said two supervisors are by names 'Adnan' and

'Sadik'. On carefully going through the statements, it is

apparent that there is a mention regarding name of the

present applicant as to visiting the said site when the

concerned building was under construction and in fact the

another officer of municipal corporation, the co-accused had

visited the site in the Car belonging to the present

applicant.

It is further submitted on behalf of the State

that it is the ordeal to be done at the time of trial whether

there is any role of the present applicant so far as the

offence punishable under Section 467 is concerned, it is also

submitted that whether or not Part-I or Part-II of Section

304 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted, the same is

required to be done after the recording of evidence of all

the witnesses and said ordeal cannot be done at this stage.

6] Considering the role attributed to the present

applicant, as per the statements of witnesses and as per the

charge sheet papers and considering the applicability of

Section 304 and subsequent application of Section 467 and

also application of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, it

is not in the fitness of situation that the present

application can be allowed and to distinguish amongst the

accused persons as to who has committed which offence at this

sbw 6/6 2.ba1354.13

stage of bail. In the result, in the considered opinion of

this Court, the benefit of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is not

available to the applicant and hence there is no merit in the

present application and same is accordingly dismissed.

7] Needless to mention that the present application was

not heard on merits of the matter, however, the aspect of

merits of the case has been dealt with only in order to

ascertain vis a vis a particular accused whether the benefit

of Section 167 can be made available in the instant case.

( A. R. JOSHI, J.) wadhwa