Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two anticipatory bail applications filed by Vivek Keshavrao Dongre, a civil engineer and proprietor of M/s Vertical Architect and Planners, and Gaurav Jinendrakumar Shah, an architect, in connection with Crime No. 79/2020 registered at Mahad City Police Station for offences under Sections 304, 304-A, 337, 338 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The crime arose from the collapse of a building named 'Tareek Garden' on 24th August 2019, which resulted in 16 deaths and 9 injuries. The building was constructed by M/s Kohinoor Developers, a proprietary concern of co-accused Farookh Kazi, based on a plan submitted by the applicants. The plan was approved by the Mahad Municipal Council on 5th April 2011, and construction commenced on 8th October 2011. On 3rd January 2012, the applicants certified that the building was constructed as per the sanctioned plan, and on 19th October 2013, the Municipal Council issued a completion certificate. The applicants argued that they had no role in the actual construction or use of substandard materials, and that the collapse was due to structural defects beyond their control. The State opposed the bail, contending that the applicants were responsible for the design and certification, and that the collapse indicated gross negligence. The court analyzed the ingredients of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 304-A IPC (causing death by negligence). It held that for Section 304, there must be an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, which was absent in the case of the applicants. The court noted that the applicants' role was limited to submitting the plan and certifying compliance with the sanctioned plan, and there was no evidence that they had any knowledge of the building's structural weakness. The court further observed that the case was more appropriately covered under Section 304-A, which is a bailable offence. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to both applicants, subject to conditions including attending the police station as required, not tampering with evidence, and furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - Applicants, an architect and a civil engineer, sought pre-arrest bail in a building collapse case where 16 persons died and 9 were injured - Court held that the allegations did not prima facie disclose the ingredients of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) as there was no intention or knowledge of likely death - The case was more appropriately covered under Section 304-A IPC (causing death by negligence) which is bailable - Held that the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail as they had no direct role in the construction and the certificate of completion was issued by the municipal council based on the architect's certificate (Paras 1-16). B) Indian Penal Code - Culpable Homicide - Section 304 IPC - Distinction from Negligence - Section 304-A IPC - The court examined the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 304 and death by negligence under Section 304-A - Held that for Section 304, there must be an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death - In the present case, the architect and engineer had no such intention or knowledge; they merely certified the building as per sanctioned plans - The collapse was due to structural defects, but the applicants' role was limited to design and certification - Held that Section 304 was not attracted (Paras 7-10). C) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Conditions - While granting anticipatory bail, the court imposed conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and to prevent tampering of evidence - Applicants were directed to attend the police station as required, not to influence witnesses, and to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants, an architect and a civil engineer, are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with a building collapse that resulted in deaths and injuries, where the offences alleged include culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Final Decision
The court allowed both anticipatory bail applications. The applicants were directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties. Conditions were imposed including attending the police station as required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without court permission.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 304 IPC
- Section 304-A IPC
- culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- rash and negligent act
- building collapse
- architect liability
- engineer liability
- prima facie case
