Morbi bridge collapse case: Jaysukh Patel presents bail request with noteworthy argument in a court session.

A Morbi sessions court went through the the regular bail application of Oreva Group MD Jaysukh Patel for March 31. Jaysukh submitted the following before the court of principal district and sessions judge P C Joshi through his lawyer, “The allegation is, I chose not to get the bridge technically examined by conducting relevant technical tests after renovation work……. MoU, in my submission, has to be read in its entirety.

Nowhere is it written in the MoU that I had to undertake certification tasks….repairs were undertaken in full public view. At no point of time is there any written or oral communication by the nagarpalika, or objection raised, indicating that the task of renovating the bridge is not up to the mark. 

The request further stated “Allegation is I opened the bridge without informing concerned authorities and without taking due care and precaution with respect to various safety measures such as lifeguards, enough manpower etc… bridge was opened on October 26, 2022, in full public glare.

There were advertisements which were put across the city that the bridge will be opened for the public from 26.10.2022. …..Today it (prosecution) says ‘you did not do this you did not do that’, (it is to be noted) that the property is owned by Nagarpalika, it is not a personal property of mine.

I got involved as a philanthropist…..No where it is on the record as to what is the strength of the bridge. Now they’re (prosecution) saying that because of overcrowding the bridge collapsed. In the absence of any material (on the strength of the bridge) who is to say that?”

The prosecution, represented by special public prosecutor Sanjay Vora, opposed the bail plea, arguing that “The foundation of the case of the prosecution is the bridge collapse. If there was no collapse, no offence was made… When something is given by the government by way of contract to renovate or repair a public property, the scope and tenure of repair and renovation depend on the condition of the bridge.

The moment he says in January 2020 that the bridge is likely to collapse because it has become dilapidated, then the scope of repair and renovation is widened. Then he cannot say ‘this is not stated in the contract”.

He added “Suppose there was no contract with the responsibility granted to you on oral consent. Then what would have been your responsibility? To make sure all cables are strengthened and to make sure the bridge doesn’t collapse…

Breaking of the wires (forming part of the cable by which the bridge was supported) happened over a span of 15 years. So was the repair made to strengthen the bridge or to weaken it? If for 14 years you maintained the bridge then why did it ultimately collapse?”

What is the cause behind the occurrence of blood in urine? Is it cancer or something else?