JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This common order shall dispose of the above three applications for bail filed by the applicants in Crime No.1/2014 registered with Canacona Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 336, 337, 338 and 304 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), to which subsequently, the offences under Sections 120-B of IPC and Section 7 and 13(1) (a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for short) have been added. The applicant Dipak Desai, the Additional Collector-II, North Goa, Panaji, who was holding additional charge of Chief Officer of Canacona Municipal Council in addition to his regular post as Deputy Collector, at Canacona between January, 2010 to October, 2010 and Mr. Pradeep Naik, the Dy. Collector, who worked as Chief Officer, Canacona Municipal Council between September, 2011 to July, 2012 and again from December, 2012 to October, 2013 were arrested on 12/02/2014, whereas the applicant Prashant Shirodkar, who was working as Deputy Collector for Canacona from 10/07/2012 to 13/01/2014 was arrested on 13/01/2014, in the said Crime. Presently all the applicants are in judicial custody. 3. Replies have been filed by the respondent in answer to all the three applications. The offence has been registered upon the complaint lodged by Shri Prashant P. Shirodkar, Deputy Collector and S.D.M., Canacona, Goa, the applicant of Bail application No.44/2014, alleging that on 04/01/2014 at around 14.30 hours, the accused persons being the builder, contractors, engineers, supervisors, architect, TCP Department and others, connected with construction of two residential buildings (Ground+2 and Ground+4) known as “Ruby residency” at Ruby Construction site, situated in survey Nos 26/2, 26/3 and 26/4 of Chaudi, Canacona, constructed the same or acted in so rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and personal safety of others and having knowledge that such act may take lives of others, which building collapsed on 04/01/2014 causing death of 31 construction workers and causing simple/grievous injuries to other about 50 workers. 4. Another complaint dated 29/01/2014 was received from Mr. Saroj Kolah and Mrs. Gulshan Kolah, from Mumbai, alleging that the accused Builder and the Contractor deceived them and dishonestly induced them to pay an amount of Rs.16,86,086/- towards the purchase of flat in Ruby Residency at Chaudi, Canacona, which collapsed on account of which Section 420 of IPC was also added to the same Crime. Saroj Kolah and Mrs. Gulshan Kolah, from Mumbai, alleging that the accused Builder and the Contractor deceived them and dishonestly induced them to pay an amount of Rs.16,86,086/- towards the purchase of flat in Ruby Residency at Chaudi, Canacona, which collapsed on account of which Section 420 of IPC was also added to the same Crime. Even Section 17-A of the Town and Country Planning Act has been added to the Crime. 5. After the collapse of the said building, a team of Professors including Head of Civil Engineering Department of Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi was appointed to investigate into the collapse of the building in order to find out the cause of the collapse. The said team by report dated 08/01/2014, inter alia, reported that the building collapsed because the same was constructed on earth-fill held back by large retaining wall. After collapse of the building, there was deterioration of the retaining wall. The quality of concrete was suspected. It was reported that the building collapsed because of non-stabilization of the earth-fill induced by sinking of column footings. 6. The applicant-Dipak Desai, in his capacity as Chief Officer of Canacona Municipal Council, had issued two construction licences, in survey nos. 26/2, 26/3 and 26/4 from 28/05/2010 and 27/05/2011 and from 18/06/2010 to 17/06/2011. It is the case of the respondent that the said licences were granted without scrutinizing the documents such as Form No.I & XIV, Survey Plan, Structural Design, Structural Liability Certificate, Site Plan, Conversion Sanad, etc., whereas the applicant alleges that he had signed the said construction licences only after the files were duly scrutinized by the Municipal Engineers for technical and other parameters and by the Town and Country Planning Department. According to the applicant, after issuing the construction licence, except for verification of alignment, when applied for by the builder, the applicant had no role to play and in the instant case the builder did not apply of alignment during his tenure and the construction collapsed almost after three years after the applicant ceased to be the Chief Officer. The applicant-Pradeep Naik, in his capacity as Chief Officer of Canacona Municipal Council, granted renewal licences for the construction of the residential building (G+4), which collapsed, from 28/05/2011 to 27/05/2012 and from 28/05/2012 to 27/05/2013 in survey nos. The applicant-Pradeep Naik, in his capacity as Chief Officer of Canacona Municipal Council, granted renewal licences for the construction of the residential building (G+4), which collapsed, from 28/05/2011 to 27/05/2012 and from 28/05/2012 to 27/05/2013 in survey nos. 26/2, 26/3 and 26/4 and also issued renewal licences for residential building (G+2) from 18/06/2011 to 17/06/2012 and subsequently from 18/06/2012 to 17/06/2013 and issued occupancy certificate dated 15/04/2013 to the accused builder, for the residential building (G+2). The respondent alleges that the applicant did this without checking the documents such as Structural Liability Certificate, R.C.C. Drawings and R.C.C. Design Calculations whereas according to this applicant, he only renewed the three construction licences already granted or issued by the earlier Chief Officer and on the basis of report submitted by the Municipal Engineer of the Council. The applicant-Prashant Naik, in his capacity as Chief Officer of Canacona Municipal council, during the year 2013 granted occupancy certificate dated 26/12/2013 to the residential building (G+4) to M/S Bharat Developers & Realtors Pvt. Ltd in survey nos. 26/2, 26/3 and 26/4. The respondent alleges that he did so without completion of the said building and without scrutiny/verification of the documents such as Form No.I & XIV, Survey Plan, Structural Design, Structural Liability Certificate, Site Plan, Conversion Sanad, etc. It is further alleged by the respondent that the accused builder had requested for occupancy certificate for residential building, stilt + G+4(Phase-I and phase-II) in the property bearing survey nos.26/2, 26/3 and 26/4 but had submitted documents only in respect of survey no.26/3 and not in respect of survey nos.26/2 and 26/4, in spite of which the applicant granted the occupancy certificate for residential building G+4 (Phase-I and Phase-II), whereas according to the applicant, the occupancy certificate was granted in good faith since the Municipal Engineer had submitted the file for signature of Chief officer on occupancy certificate along with the completion certificate of the said building issued by the Deputy Town Planner along with his report stating that the said construction of the building was complete. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Dipak Desai, submitted that the building has been wrongly stated to be high rise building and that the same does not fall within the definition of high rise building and, therefore, there was no need of compliance with the provisions of the Fire Protection of National Building Code of India, in terms of Regulation 4.14 of the Planning and Development Authority (Development) Regulations, 2000 (PDA Regulations, 2000) and bye-law 33 of the Municipal Council Building Bye-laws & Regulations, 1987 (Building Regulations, 1987) which provided for following of the Fire Safety requirements. He submitted that Mr. Dipak Desai was only the Chief Officer of the Canacona Municipal Council and had signed the construction licence as routine part of his duties and all the technical aspects with regard to the licences were scrutinised for technical and other parameters by the Municipal Engineers and the applicant signed the licence only after technical verification of the file was done by the Municipal Engineer and the Town and Country Planning Department. He invited my attention to the construction licence which says that the Chief Officer had to verify alignment after applied for by the Builder. He pointed out that the Builder had not applied for any alignment during the tenure of the applicant as Chief Officer and that the alignment was done after the applicant ceased to work as Chief Officer. He further submitted that no construction work of whatsoever nature had started during the tenure of the applicant Dipak Desai, as Chief Officer. He submitted that the Builders, who are the main culprits could not yet be arrested. He submitted that the duties of the Chief Officer are only administrative in nature. He urged that since the applicant-Dipak Desai issued the construction licence as per the recommendations made by the Municipal Engineer, he cannot be held guilty for any offence. According to him, no case has been at all made out for application of Section 304 of IPC, since the ingredients of the said Section are absent in the present case. Mr. Joshi further contended that the applicant-Dipak Desai was arrested on 12/02/2014 and presently he is in judicial custody and no purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody and this would only amount to punishment before conviction. Mr. Joshi further contended that the applicant-Dipak Desai was arrested on 12/02/2014 and presently he is in judicial custody and no purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody and this would only amount to punishment before conviction. He read out the provisions of Regulations 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5 of the PDA Regulations, 2000. He also read out Bye-law 5 of the Building Regulations, 1987. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant-Dipak Desai be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of “Khemlo Sakharam Sawant Vs. State” [ 2002(1) Bom.C.R. 689 ]. 8. Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Pradeep Naik submitted that this applicant was arrested on 12/02/2014 and had filed an application for bail on 13/02/2014, in spite of which, the learned Special Judge granted 10 days police custody in respect of the applicant and heard the Bail Application on 14/02/2014 and on 23/02/2014 extended the police custody by four more days ending on 27/02/2014 and ultimately, rejected the Bail Application on 28/02/2014. He submitted that there is violation of fundamental right of this applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel read out paragraph 13 of the judgment in the case of “Khemlo Sakharam Sawant” (supra). He submitted that presently, the applicant-Pradeep is in judicial lock up and not wanted for the purpose of any investigation and since there is no fear that he would abscond, he is now entitled to bail. He invited my attention to the report submitted by team from Engineering College of Farmagudi which contained expert professors and submitted that the report clearly reveals that the collapse was on account of defect of the Engineering failure. He contended that since the building collapsed due to engineering failure, others cannot be held liable. He further submitted that the applicant-Pradeep was not there when plans of the construction were approved and when the construction licence was granted. He submitted that this applicant came into picture only for renewal of the licence. He read out the provisions of Section 2(38), 2(39), 2(52), 2(129), 2(131) and 2(132) of The Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010. He also read out the provision of Regulation 3 of the PDA Regulations, 2000. He submitted that this applicant came into picture only for renewal of the licence. He read out the provisions of Section 2(38), 2(39), 2(52), 2(129), 2(131) and 2(132) of The Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010. He also read out the provision of Regulation 3 of the PDA Regulations, 2000. He then read out sections 10 and 11 of the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008. According to him, all the provisions would show that the prime responsibility is of the technical officers like Structural Engineer, Municipal Engineer, Town and Country Department officers, Planning and Development authority, etc.. He, therefore, questioned as to how can the applicant-Pradeep be held liable if the building collapses due to Engineering failure. He stated that the applicant was otherwise interrogated thoroughly before his arrest. He submitted that merely because of public hue and cry, this applicant has been simply kept in custody which amounts to punishment before the trial. The learned Senior Counsel also read out Section 134 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. He pointed out that conversion sanad was very much obtained by the Builder. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in terms of Regulation 3.9 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction, Regulations, 2010, the duration of the permission shall be valid initially for a period of 3 days and renewable for further period of three years at a time. He submitted that in the present case, the construction licence was granted only for one year and hence, on account of above Regulation 3.9, the applicant- Pradeep renewed it for another year. According to him, on the basis of recommendation of Municipal Engineer, construction licence is granted and even renewals are granted with his recommendations. He submitted that for having performed the duty, the applicant could not have been involved in the Crime. He pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence to say that there was any corruption. He pointed out that insofar as granting of occupancy certificate by this applicant, is concerned, the same was for building which is still standing and not in respect of the collapsed building. He further pointed out that the said occupancy certificate was granted on account of the completion order issued by the Planning and Development Authority as required by law. He pointed out that insofar as granting of occupancy certificate by this applicant, is concerned, the same was for building which is still standing and not in respect of the collapsed building. He further pointed out that the said occupancy certificate was granted on account of the completion order issued by the Planning and Development Authority as required by law. He further submitted that there was report of Municipal Engineer after having done all the scrutiny. He also submitted that the case cannot at all be one under Section 304 of IPC and without prejudice, he submitted that at the most, Section 304-A of IPC could have been applied. 9. Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Pradeep relied upon the following cases:- (i) “Mahadev Prasad Kaushik Vs. State of U.P. and another”, [2008(14) SCC 479]; (ii) “Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation”, [ (2012)1 SCC 40 ]; and (iii) Judgment dated 06/02/2009 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision (P). 431/2005 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5436/2005 between “Baldev Raj Kapur Vs. State”. 10. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Prashant submitted that this applicant as a Chief Officer only issued occupancy certificate dated 26/12/2013. He submitted that the applicant-Prashant was arrested on 13/01/2014 and is still lavishing in custody for no fault on his part. He pointed out that in terms of Regulation 3.11 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulation, 2010, grant of occupancy certificate is depending on completion certificate issued by Planning and Development Authority. He further submitted that the occupancy certificate is issued after other scrutiny is done by the Technical Officer like Municipal Engineer. Mr. Bhobe submitted that the Chief Officer cannot have the technical expertise and, therefore, the scrutiny is bound to be done by the Municipal Engineer. According to him, in this case the report of Municipal Engineer was there. He further pointed out that the said occupancy certificate even otherwise is subject to certain conditions. He drew my attention to the reply filed by the respondent and pointed out that it is mainly stated in the reply that the approval was faulty or that the occupancy certificate was wrongly issued, etc. He pointed out that almost all the documents have been now attached. He submitted that merely because some accused persons are absconding, that cannot be the fault of the present applicant. He pointed out that almost all the documents have been now attached. He submitted that merely because some accused persons are absconding, that cannot be the fault of the present applicant. He submitted that the objection regarding tampering of evidence is taken by the prosecution almost in all the cases. By resorting to Section 288 of Municipalities Act, he submitted that the act of the applicant was in good faith. He also contended that Section 304 of IPC cannot at all be applied to the present case. 11. On the contrary, Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that present is the case of collapse of High Rise Building due to irregular/illegal technical permissions. He submitted that even the Officers of the Town and Country Planning Department and Municipal Engineer have been implicated in the present case. He submitted that if the Civil Engineer of the Builder had made mistakes, it does not mean that the public authorities should sleep and should grant permissions without proper scrutiny and supervision. He pointed out from the relevant provisions that it was the duty of the Chief Officer to supervise and that such supervision includes proper scrutiny. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Chief Officer is in control of the Municipality. He also read out various relevant provisions of the PDA Regulations, 2000, Goa Land Development Building Construction Regulations, 2010 and Building Regulations, 1987. He submitted that if care was taken not to grant construction licences, renewals, etc., the unfortunate incident would not have occurred. He submitted that the building consisted of 88 flats and, therefore, the authorities had to be more alert while granting the approvals. According to him, since Section 120-B of IPC has been applied, the Chief Officers also become liable along with Municipal Engineer, and Structural Engineer, and others. He read out Section 32 of IPC which says that omissions are included in the acts. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the cryptic note that was put by the Municipal Engineer recommending grant of construction licence ought not to have been acted upon by the Chief Officer. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the applicants can be said to have had full knowledge at the time of grant of permissions, renewals, and occupancy certificates that the building would collapse. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the applicants can be said to have had full knowledge at the time of grant of permissions, renewals, and occupancy certificates that the building would collapse. According to him, therefore, Section 304 of IPC is very much applicable and it would be premature to say that the said Section is not applicable. 12. I have gone through the entire material on record and I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties and also the judgments cited by them. 13. By now, it is well settled that the Court should not undertake meticulous examination of evidence while considering the application for bail. In the case of “Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and another”, ( AIR 2013 SC 296 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus : “10. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial.” 14. In the present case, the applicants are now in judicial custody after having been thoroughly interrogated in police custody for 14 days. In the case of “Bhagirathisinh Judeja Vs. State (A.I.R. 1984 SC 372), inter alia, it is observed as under : “5...... But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. .... 8. But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. .... 8. … And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of this court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence.” 15. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant Pradeep Naik, has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation”, [ (2012) 1 SCC 40 ]. In the aforesaid case, it has been held by the Apex Court as under : “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 16. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mahadev Prasad Kaushik” (supra) and of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in the case of “BaldevRaj Kapur” (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant- Pradeep, in which the circumstances in which Section 304 of IPC becomes applicable have been discussed, there is a question whether Section 304 of IPC is applicable to the present case or whether it should be Section 304-A of IPC, which will have to be answered by the trial Court before framing the charges. However, in my view, benefit, due to doubt regarding the question of application of Section 304 of IPC, should go in favour of the applicants insofar as the grant of bail is concerned. 17. All the three applicants are presently in judicial custody and, therefore, they cannot assist the Investigating Officer in any manner. However, in my view, benefit, due to doubt regarding the question of application of Section 304 of IPC, should go in favour of the applicants insofar as the grant of bail is concerned. 17. All the three applicants are presently in judicial custody and, therefore, they cannot assist the Investigating Officer in any manner. Merely because main accused are absconding due to which the investigation is alleged to be hampered, the present applicants cannot be kept in custody as it is not the case of the prosecution that the said other accused persons are absconding as per the instructions of the present applicants or that their whereabouts are known to the present applicants. All the main documents have already been attached by the police and since it is reported that the applicants are under suspension, the question of their tampering with the evidence, does not arise, since they do not now have access to the office and to the subordinates from their office. There is no evidence produced by the respondent to show that the applicants are likely to tamper with the witnesses or evidence. In the case of “Khemlo Sakharam Sawant” (supra), relied upon by Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant–Dipak Desai, the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that in case the applicant, if released on bail, attempts to bring any pressure on the complainant, that would be a good case for cancellation of bail, but it will result in miscarriage of justice to keep the applicant in custody on the basis of mere apprehension. It is further observed that merely because co-accused is absconding, is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail. There is no reason not to be in agreement with the above observations. 18. Upon perusal of the provisions relied upon by the parties, prima facie, it is revealed that the role of the Chief Officer is supervisory in nature. Regulation no.5 of Building Regulations, 1987 lays down the procedure, which is required to be followed for granting building permission. The said provision says that the Council is expected to grant permission if it is satisfied after scrutiny of the record as required in these Bye-Laws and after site inspections that the proposed building operation is in conformity with the provisions of Bye-Laws. The said provision says that the Council is expected to grant permission if it is satisfied after scrutiny of the record as required in these Bye-Laws and after site inspections that the proposed building operation is in conformity with the provisions of Bye-Laws. For getting the permission, the Builder is required to apply to the Council in prescribed form as mentioned in Schedule I and the format given in Schedule I of the said application shows that records/drawings and building documents approved by the Planning and Development Authority are required to be produced and also site plan in triplicate showing the position of the plot etc. Three copies of the plans, elevations, sections and other details of the proposed construction are required to be supplied along with the application. Regulation no.8 provides for building plan an drawings. It is the Municipal Engineer, who has to receive the application and make recommendation to the Chief Officer. The Chief Officers are expected to act on the basis of the file prepared by the Municipal Engineer. Under the Building regulations, 2010, the structural Engineer plays the vital role. Regulation 3.2 of the Building Regulations 2010 provides for the requirements for obtaining the permission which has to be obtained on an application in prescribed format as provided in regulation no.3.2-A. Regulation no.3.2-D carves out the documents to be submitted along with the application. Mainly, the certificate from the Architect/ Engineer/ Structural Engineer/ Town Planner/ Landscape Architect/ Urban Designer, stating the details and Structural Liability Certificate are required to be produced. Regulation no.3.6 spells out the procedure to obtain the permission i.e. by an application in terms of Regulation 3.6.1. The first step contains in applying to the Town and Country Planning department for technical clearance, in the prescribed Appendix. Under the provision of Regulation 3.6.2(e), the structural design for any building has to be carried out by a structural Engineer or by the structural Design Agency. The applicants who are chief officers at the relevant time cannot be expected to know all the technicalities. Regulation no.3.9 speaks about the duration of Sanction and occupancy certificate. In terms of Regulation no.3.11, occupancy certificate can be given only upon the issuance of completion order by the Planning and Development Authority, Such occupancy certificate itself puts certain conditions to be fulfilled. Regulation no.3.9 speaks about the duration of Sanction and occupancy certificate. In terms of Regulation no.3.11, occupancy certificate can be given only upon the issuance of completion order by the Planning and Development Authority, Such occupancy certificate itself puts certain conditions to be fulfilled. According to the applicants, the building which collapsed did not come within the definition of high rise building for obtaining the permission from the Directorate of Fire & Emergency Services. 19. The powers and duties of the Chief Officer are laid down in Section 74 of the Municipalities Act, 1968 and they are as under : “74. POWERS AND DUTIES OF CHIEF OFFICE— (1) The Chief Officer shall— (a) subject to the control, direction and supervision of the [Chairperson], supervise the financial and executive administration of the Council and exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as may be conferred or imposed upon him or allotted to him by or under this Act; (b) take steps to give effect to all the decisions or resolutions of the Council; (c) cause to be maintained and supervise the accounts and registers of the Council; (d) subject to the orders of the competent authority, take prompt steps to remove any irregularity pointed out by the Municipal Auditor; (e) prepare budget estimates and submit them to the Standing Committee; (f) report to the [Chairperson] and the Committee concerned all cases of fraud, embezzlement, theft or loss of municipal money and property; (g) exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all the officers and servants of the Council; (h) subject to the rules, bye-laws and general or special orders made under this Act, dispose of all questions such as the pay and allowances, leave and other privileges in respect of the officers and servants of the Council. (2) The Chief Officer may, with the sanction of the Council, delegate any of the powers or duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or allotted to him by or under this Act, to any municipal officer or servant: Provided that such delegation shall be subject to such limitations, if any, as may be prescribed by the Council and also to the control and revision by the Chief Officer.” 20. The procedure for securing building permission and grant of building permit is contained in Regulation 5 of the said Building Regulations, 1987 and the said provision provides as under : “5. Procedure for securing Building permission and Grant of building permit: (a) No building operation shall be carried out within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council without obtaining prior permission for the same in writing from the Council; (b) any person intending to carry out any building operation under the provisions of sub-clause (a) shall apply in writing to the Council in prescribed form (see Schedule I) enclosing necessary documents as prescribed in the Byelaws for the grant of permission; (c) every such person shall be required to furnish any plan or other document as prescribed in these Bye-laws in triplicate; (d) on receipt of such applications the Council shall grant permission in the form (see Schedule II) if the Council is satisfied after making such scrutiny and or site inspection as deemed to be necessary, that the proposed building operation is in conformity the provisions of the Bye-laws. (e) it shall be necessary for every person whose plans have been approved or otherwise, to submit amended plans for any deviations that he proposes to make during the construction of his building work and the procedure laid down for plans and/or other documents here-to-fore shall apply to all such amended plans; (f) the decision of the Council in pursuance of the application referred to in Bye-laws 5(d) shall be communicated to the person or to his legally authorised agent in writing in the form (see Schedule II) for Building Permission or in the Form (See Schedule III), for refusal of sanction as the case may be within the period of 60 days and one set of the documents such as plans, etc. duly endorsed shall be returned to him or his authorised agent.” 21. No doubt, the incident of collapse of the building which took lives of 31 workers and caused injuries to many others, is an unfortunate episode. The magnitude of the calamity can be certainly understood. The applicant-Dipak Desai and the applicant-Pradeep Naik were arrested on 12/02/2014 and they were remanded to judicial custody from 27/02/2014. Mr. Prashant Shirodkar was arrested on 13/01/2014 and was remanded to judicial custody from 27/01/2014. The magnitude of the calamity can be certainly understood. The applicant-Dipak Desai and the applicant-Pradeep Naik were arrested on 12/02/2014 and they were remanded to judicial custody from 27/02/2014. Mr. Prashant Shirodkar was arrested on 13/01/2014 and was remanded to judicial custody from 27/01/2014. However, the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa in the orders dated 28/02/2014 in Bail Applications No. 90/2014 and 91/2014 in respect of Pradeep Naik and Dipak Desai respectively and in the order dated 03/02/2014 in Bail Application No.33/2014 in respect of Prashant Shirodkar has observed that the presence of the applicant is required in police custody not because of outrage, which the collapse of the building has caused as is one of the planks of argument but seriousness of the offence coupled with deep routed conspiracy pursuant to which such construction was at all permitted and carried out in that terrain. It is observed by the learned Sessions Court that the angle of conspiracy and the involvement of persons in high posts and positions needs to be thoroughly investigated looking to the manner in which the construction has been undertaken, the apparent lack of quality, standards and palpable manipulation of the records etc. which can be achieved only by custodial interrogation to facilitate unearthing the deep routed conspiracy. Thus, the need of custodial interrogation was taken to be one of the main criteria for rejecting bail to the applicants. However, the learned Sessions Court lost sight of the fact that as on the date of passing of the orders in the said bail applications, the applicants were not in police custody, but were already sent to the judicial custody and there was no possibility of any further custodial interrogation. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant-Dipak Desai, while granting construction licence had a supervisory duty and was guided by the recommendations made by the Municipal Engineer; the applicant – Pradeep Naik only renewed the construction licences which were already granted and the applicant-Prashant Shirodkar only granted the occupancy certificate upon perusal of the completion order of the Planning and Development Authority and subject to conditions. Considering the nature of the offence and the fact that the applicants have now been sent to judicial custody, I am of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping the applicants in custody any more. Considering the nature of the offence and the fact that the applicants have now been sent to judicial custody, I am of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping the applicants in custody any more. It is time now that they should be relieved of imprisonment and the State should be relieved of the burden of keeping them. The applicants do not have any past criminal record suggesting that they are likely to commit serious offences, while on bail. They are stated to be under suspension. They all have deep roots in this State and are family persons and above all are Government servants. They have permanent residence in Goa. In my view, they are now entitled to bail with appropriate conditions. 22. Hence, all the three applications are allowed with the following: ORDER The applicants shall be released on bail in Crime No.1 of 2014 registered with Canacona Police Station now transferred to CID, Crime Branch, Dona Paula, upon execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount out of which one of the sureties shall be local under following conditions : 1) Each of the applicants shall attend the office of CID, Crime Branch, Dona Paula, as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate with the investigation. 2) They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3) They shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. 4) They shall not visit the Municipal limits of Canacona until the filing of the charge sheet in the said crime. 5) They shall not leave State of Goa till the filing of the charge sheet and India without previous permission of learned Special Court having jurisdiction. 6) Their bail bonds be executed before the Special Court and to its satisfaction. 23. The applications stand disposed of by making it clear that the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court above as the same are made only for the purpose of consideration of bail applications. Applications disposed of.