RAMESH VASUDEO INAMDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 4th 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 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 29th 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 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.