PATEL GIRISHBHAI RAVJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard Mr.J.M.Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.A.D.Oza, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr.N.D.Gohil, learned APP on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) . The brief facts of the present petition are as under :- As per the complaint dated 31st January, 2001, the complainant is serving as Engineer Assistant at Doordarshan Kendra. It is alleged in the complaint that Flats in the name and style of `Sarva Darshan Apartments' were constructed on the plot of the land bearing Survey No.93/2 situated in the limits of village Thaltej by these builders, each flat was having super built-up area of 105 sq.yards and it was estimating at Rs.4 lacs. It is further alleged that when the complainant went to the builder to purchase the flat, the builder told him to make payment of Rs.3,05,000.00 by cheque and Rs.95,000/each cash. It is also alleged in the complaint that the builder also separately demanded Rs.15,000/towards maintenace charges. It is also alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased Flat No.12 of Nilkanth Association. It is also alleged in the complaint that Rs.3,05,000.00 and Rs.95,000.00 were paid. The amount of Rs.15,000.00 towards maintenace charges was also paid. It is alleged in the complaint that one Mr.C.K.Daftari was the Engineer for the purpose of planning of the said Apartments. It is also alleged in the complaint that permission for constructing Aprtment was also obtained from the AUDA. It is further alleged in the complaint that after purchasing the flat, he was not given detailed plan and specifications regarding building / apartments, nor he was shown the same. It is also alleged in the complaint that Building Use Permission was also not obtained. It is also alleged in the complaint that builders have not built the said Apartments as per the plans, which were sanctioned by the AUDA. It is also alleged in the complaint that the members of the building have also not been supplied the revised plan of the building. It is also alleged in the complaint that 16 flats belong to Nilkanth Owners Association and 24 flats belong to Ghanshyam Owners Association in this Surbhi Apartments. It is alleged in the complaint that Nilkanth Owners Association also put up a big water tank on the terrace. It is also alleged in the complaint that water tank constructed was of bigger size than what was mentioned in the plan. It is also alleged in the complaint that building of Nilkantha Owners Association is constructed on hollow plinth level on the ground floor in which parking facility is there. It is also alleged in the complaint that the complainant was residing on the 2nd floor of Nilkanth Owners Association. It is alleged in the complaint that because of devasting earthquake on 26th January, 2001, the said building collapased, as one pillar broke down. It is also alleged in the complaint that big water tank also broke down. It is also alleged in the complaint that 2nd Block has also received many cracks and it is not fit for inhabitation. It is also alleged in the complaint that other falats and buldings situated in the adjoining area are intact. It is alleged in the complaint that with a knowledge or intention that by using sub standard materials, lives of many poersons may be put in danger, the builders have constructed the building without obtaining B.U.Permission and not as per the plans. Names of the victims who have died have also been narrated in the complaint. It is alleged that in all 24 persons have died in the collapsed of building. The applicants are in judicial custody since then.

(3.) . The present petitioner has filed application being Criminal Misc. Application No.163 of 2001 in the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad for releasing him on bail and the said application has been rejected by concerned Court by judgment and order dated 29th March, 2001 and hence the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad dated 29th March, 2001 is under challenge in the present petition by the petitioner under Section 439 of CrPC 1973 on the ground that the petitioner is completely innocent.