Rising Occurrences Of Illegal Buildings Has Detrimental Impact On Public Infra, Safety: Bombay High Court

Observing that the 'rising occurrence' of illegally constructed buildings has a detrimental impact on public infrastructure, the Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a developer booked for constructing an illegal building that collapsed in July this year, in Navi Mumbai, 

Single-judge Justice Rajesh Laddha noted that the applicant - Mahesh Kumbhar, has been facing allegations of constructing a four-storey building without necessary permissions and using substandard materials, violating the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act.

"The building's collapse allegedly resulted from negligence, endangering lives and safety. The material on record suggests the applicant's involvement in construction, financing, and owning four flats, which were rented. As a landlord, the applicant was responsible for the building's construction, maintenance, and repairs," the bench said in its order passed on September 2.

The investigation in the instant case, the judge said, indicates the applicant's involvement in the crime and raises questions about the corporation's concerned departments' role in allowing the unauthorised building to stand for so many years.

"A thorough investigation is necessary to uncover the circumstances surrounding the building's construction and prolonged unauthorised status. The rising occurrence of unapproved construction projects has a detrimental impact on public infrastructure. It depletes resources and poses a serious risk to public safety. The absence of proper legal approval and expert consultation during construction, as well as routine post-construction checks, inevitably leads to catastrophic events like building collapse. The consequences are severe, resulting in loss of property and lives. Once a life is lost, it is an irreversible tragedy," the judge observed. 

It is a settled position in law that granting anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. While regular bail is generally considered the norm, the same principle does not apply to anticipatory bail, the court noted.

"Considering each case's specific circumstances, the Court must exercise careful and prudent discretion when deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail. There is no one-size- fits-all approach. Caution is necessary, as granting protection in serious cases could potentially hinder investigation or lead to miscarriage of justice by allowing tampering with evidence. Given the gravity of the offence wherein three persons lost their lives and several others were seriously injured and the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. As a result, the application stands rejected," Justice Laddha said.

The bench was hearing a plea filed by one Mahesh Kumbhar, who was named as an accused by the Navi Mumbai Police under sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 125(a) (endangering human life), 125(b) (grievous hurt), 324(4) (mischief to cause damage) read with 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS) 2023. The police also invoked the relevant provisions of the MRTP Act against the applicant. 

The FIR was lodged after a building named 'Indira Nivas' collapsed on July 27, this year, killing three residents of the building. It was the prosecution case that the applicant played a vital role in financing and also constructing and maintaining the building in question. Whereas, the applicant contended that he only financed the building's constructed way back in 2009.

The bench, however, noted that the evidence and also took into account the 'gravity' of the offence and therefore, rejected the anticipatory bail plea.

Appearance:

Advocate Shekhar Ingawale appeared for the Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Yogesh Dabke represented the State.

Case Title: Mahesh Motiram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra (ABA/2432/2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Order