A century-old bridge over the Machhu river collapsed in Morbi, Gujarat, killing 134 people.
The prosecution said that the contractors who repaired the Morbi bridge were not qualified.
The prosecution informed a court on November 1 that the contractors engaged in the repair of the suspension bridge in Morbi, Gujarat, lacked the necessary training to handle such works. On the evening of October 30, 135 people lost their lives when the Morbi Bridge collapsed.
Prosecutors, citing a forensic investigation, said that although the bridge's floor was replaced, its cables were left in place and unable to support the weight of the new floor. The magistrate's court ordered the police to nab four of the arrested suspects, including two Orewa Group supervisors and two subcontractors, who repaired the bridge, by November 5.
According to prosecutor HS Panchal, as the police did not request their custody, Chief Judicial Magistrate M J Khan remanded five additional arrested people, including the security guard and ticket sales clerk, to judicial custody. The police used Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code to arrest nine people on October 31.
Deepak Parekh, Dinesh Dave, Prakash Parmar and Devang Parmar, appointed as repair contractors by the OREVA group, were the four people who were kept in police custody. Panchal said the court cited the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to say that forensic experts thought that the breakdown of the main cable of the bridge was attributed to the new floor.
"Though the FSL report was submitted in a sealed cover, it was mentioned during the remand petition that the cables of the bridge were not changed during repairs and only the floor was changed..... The weight of the bridge was four. The reason increased - the flaky aluminum sheet for the floor and that weight caused the cable to break," Panchal told reporters.
Additionally, the court was informed that no repair contractor was "qualified" to carry out the work.
“Despite this, these contractors were given the task of repairing the bridge in 2007 and again in 2022. Hence, the custodianship of the accused to find out what was the reason for choosing them and at whose behest they were selected,” the prosecutor said. was needed."
No comments:
Post a Comment