On Friday, the Morbi police in Gujarat submitted a chargesheet in the Jhulto Pul suspension bridge accident case identifying Jaysukh Patel, managing director of OREVA Group’s Ajanta Manufacturing Private Limited (AMPL), as one of ten suspects accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. At least 135 people died and over 180 were injured on 30 October 2022 when an overcrowded pedestrian suspension bridge over the Machchhu River in Morbi in Gujarat collapsed.
According to the reports, the defendants are expected to get copies of the chargesheet by January 30. Jaysukh Patel has been named as an accused in the 1,262-page chargesheet, joining the nine others who have previously been detained, including two Oreva Group executives. The nine defendants are in judicial prison, while Patel remains free, a magisterial court issued an arrest order against him. The police who are investigating the case stated the possibility that Patel is free and has not yet left the country. On January 24, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Morbi, MJ Khan, issued an arrest warrant against Patel under section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Earlier on January 20, Patel filed an anticipatory bail plea at the Morbi sessions court, and the hearing was adjourned till February 1.
Around 367 persons have been named as witnesses in the chargesheet. The investigating officers stated that Patel has been charged as an accused since all deals and communications relating to the bridge’s maintenance, operations, and administration were directly in his purview, as evidenced by the discovery of papers from Oreva’s headquarters in Morbi bearing his signature.
According to the police, the final Forensic Science Laboratory report is still pending and hence has not been attached to the chargesheet. In October 2022, the authorities registered an FIR under Indian Penal Code sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder), and 114 (abettor present when the offense is committed) against the relevant agencies responsible for maintenance and supervision of the bridge, along with others whose names may emerge during the course of the investigation, without explicitly mentioning anyone.
As a result, nine persons were arrested, including AMPL managers Deepak Parekh and Dineshbhai Dave, two ticket-booking employees, three security officers stationed at the bridge, and two private contractors who worked on the bridge between March and October last year. Parekh and Dave were in charge of the production units at Morbi and Samakhiali, respectively.
Days after 135 people were killed in the bridge disaster, the police asked the magisterial court in November to add charges under sections 336, 337, and 338 of the IPC (hurt and injury due to negligence), and the court had permitted the same. According to a police official, the chargesheet has been lodged against the ten suspects under IPC sections 304, 308, 114, 336, 337, and 338.
Patel had applied to the Morbi district and sessions court earlier this month for protection from arrest. However, the judge postponed his anticipatory bail motion until February 1 after the prosecution requested more time to respond to the case.
The British-era suspension bridge collapsed only 5 days after it was reopened following renovations. The bridge was a tourist attraction, and at the time of the incident, reportedly over 500 people were on the bridge, far exceeding the capacity of 125. It has been alleged that the Oreva officials allowed the bridge to be overcrowded as they had sold too many tickets. It also has been found that the bridge was reopened by the company in a hurry without a required fitness certificate, and the authorities were not informed about the reopening.
Preliminary probes have found that the bridge’s cables were rusted, its anchors were broken, and the bolts that connected the cables with the anchors were loose. Moreover, heavy flooring was used in the renovation and the rusted cables could not take the load. It has also been found that the daily wage labourers working as guards were not told about the maximum number of people to be allowed on the bridge at a time.
