Court rejects 3 bail pleas in Ambegaon wall collapse tragedy

PUNE: Additional sessions judge Kishor D Vadane on Friday rejected bail pleas of two labour contractors and the anticipatory bail plea of an architect in the Ambegaon wall collapse case.
Architect Dnyaneshwar Omkar Nikam stands accused of certifying the Rs22 lakh bill for payment to contractor towards construction of the retaining wall. His lawyer, Hemant Zanjad, told TOI, “We will move the Bombay high court for relief.”
The sessions court held that it was the architect’s responsibility to personally inspect the retaining wall regarding its quality, work of construction, material used, thickness and the width and length of the wall. “If he (Nikam) would have checked these aspects, he would have stopped the payment and the quality of the wall could have been improved,” the court said.
“Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence and the fact that all other accused are absconding, this is not a fit case for granting the anticipatory bail relief,” it held.
Defence lawyers Zanjad and Nandakumar Shinde had argued that the applicant (Nikam) was no way concerned with the construction of the retaining wall as the plans and design for the structure were submitted by some other architect. The applicant had merely certified the bill, they said. The wall was constructed in 2010. Nikam has not been named in the FIR and his custodial interrogation was not required, they argued.
Additional public prosecutor Javed Khan cited a report filed by Bharati Vidyapeeth police senior inspector Vishnu Pawar opposing the anticipatory bail on the grounds that a report by the College of Engineering Pune expert panel has concluded that the construction of the wall was of substandard quality and that the applicant had a direct involvement in the matter.
“The applicant is a registered architect with the PMC and his services were hired by the Sinhgad Technical Institute (STI) for quality construction work,” the prosecutor said.
In the case of labour contractors Satyadev Chauhan and Diwakar Chauhan, judge Vadane said they provided workers to two developers and constructed 15 huts/tin sheds near the retaining wall. “From the police papers, it reveals that necessary precaution was not taken while installing the huts, resulting in the death and injury of workers. The police investigation is yet to complete. Hence, at this stage the two accused are not entitled for bail,” he said.
Lawyer Vivek Bhargude, representing the Chauhans, argued that Satyadev played facilitator in procuring work for the site, while Diwakar worked with a private company.