ORDER : 1. This application is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I­246 of 2019 registered with Sarthana Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 308 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. J.M. Panchal assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Nandish Thackar for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent – State and learned advocate, Mr. Ashish Dagli for the original victims. 3. The aforesaid FIR is filed by one Mr. Ayubbhai Adambhai Vadgama, Police Sub­Inspector, Sarthana Police Station, Surat. It is stated that when the complainant was on duty, he got the information from his superior officer to reach at the Shopping Center ­ Takshasila Arcade, near Sarthana Jakatnaka where the fire took place. The complainant, therefore, reached at the place of incident with his police personnel and he noticed that one firefighter was also present at the place of incident. It is further stated that whole building of Takshasila Arcade caught into fire and the boys and girls who were on the fourth floor of the said building started screaming and after that some of the boys and girls started jumping from the building. At that time, complainant and other police personnel tried to stop them by shouting. It is further stated that the crowd gathered at the place of incident tried to save the boys and girls who jumped from the building. On the basis of the information given by the Surat City Police Control­room, various firefighter vehicles reached at the place of incident. Thereafter, they tried to control the situation. It is further stated that after the control of fire by the firefighters, the complainant inquired at the place of incident. During the inquiry, it was revealed that illegal structure has been carried out by accused Harsulbhai Vakariya and Jignesh Savjibhai Pagdal. The said premises was given to one Mr. Bhargav Butani on rent. It is alleged that Bhargav Butani was running the classes. Because of the illegal structure on fourth floor of terrace of the building and since no fire safety equipments were installed and in absence of fire exit, the incident has taken place. 4. The said premises was given to one Mr. Bhargav Butani on rent. It is alleged that Bhargav Butani was running the classes. Because of the illegal structure on fourth floor of terrace of the building and since no fire safety equipments were installed and in absence of fire exit, the incident has taken place. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is arrested on 04.06.2019 and now the chargesheet is filed, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the allegation leveled against the applicant pertains to issuance of the notice for the purpose of determining “impact fee” under the Gujarat Regulation of Unauthorized Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to “GRUDA” for short) without physical verification in the year 2013. It is submitted that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the allegation leveled against the applicant is correct even then, there is no nexus between the so­called negligence of the applicant in the year 2013 with the unfortunate incident, which has occurred in May, 2019. At this stage, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the statement of the witness, Devesh Gohil. After referring to the statement of the said witness, it is submitted that the applicant was not supposed to carry out any physical inspection and in fact, the Junior Engineers have physically inspected the premises in question in the month of July, 2013 and August, 2013 and after that, certain corrections were made in the map for determining the impact fee. It is also submitted that the applicant was appointed in Varachha Zone as Executive Engineer between December, 2010 to September, 2014 and, thereafter, the applicant was shifted to different zone even prior to issuance of the certificate of regularization. It is also submitted that more than one lakh applications were decided by the competent authority during the relevant period and more than 26,000 applications have been rejected. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant thereafter would submit that the applicant has acted under his obligation of his duty as Executive Engineer following the guidelines of GRUDA and the allegations leveled against the applicant in no stretch of imagination can be said to be so negligent that would lead to such a tragic incident. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant thereafter would submit that the applicant has acted under his obligation of his duty as Executive Engineer following the guidelines of GRUDA and the allegations leveled against the applicant in no stretch of imagination can be said to be so negligent that would lead to such a tragic incident. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant has done any act, which is intentionally or with knowledge of occurrence of such incident so as to attract the ingredients of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant further submits that the case of the prosecution against the applicant is entirely based on aspersions that the construction for which impact fee was determined by the applicant was actually constructed in the year 2012. It is submitted that in support of the said allegation, the prosecution has placed reliance upon Goggle Earth images, which were recorded in the year 2010, 2011 and 2012, wherein dome was not visible. It is submitted that the dome is visible in the images in March, 2012, April, 2012 and October, 2017. Thus, it is submitted that from the aforesaid allegations, it is clear that the dome was constructed after the cut­off date. It is submitted that the applicant in fact was transferred in the year 2014 and, therefore, the applicant is not liable for the alleged incident. 7. It is further submitted that the officers of the Surat Municipal Corporation have visited the premises in question in the year 2016 and they found that the building was being used as per COR issued in the year 2015. Thus, the Mezzanine floor was constructed after 2016. In support of the said submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the statement of one Sailesh M. Dobariya, in which, he has stated that additional floor was constructed right before the demonetization and NATA and the said floor had also started functioning in the year 2017 and the students, who died in the unfortunate incident, were studying in NATA classes running on the illegal constructed floor, which was constructed much after the issuance of the notice of impact fee by the applicant. 8. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Keshub Mahindra Vs. 8. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Keshub Mahindra Vs. State of M.P., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 129 , in case of Sushil Ansal Vs. State, Through Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 359 as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Laxman Mahadeo Sariputra Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001 (3) Crimes 183 (SC). 9. Learned Counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant would be available at the time of trial and now there is no apprehension on the part of the investigating agency that the applicant will tamper with any evidence, therefore looking to the role attributed to the applicant and overall facts and circumstances of the present case, he may be enlarged on bail. 10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this application and submitted that though the illegal construction of the premises in question was made after cut­off date of 28.03.2011, the present applicant in connivance with other co­accused i.e. the owner of the premises, regularized the construction under GRUDA without following procedure prescribed under various provision of the GRUDA as well as the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that prima facie knowledge can be attributed to the applicant as fire safety equipments were not installed at the place of incident and inspite of that, illegal construction was regularized. It is submitted that the applicant is a Deputy Engineer working in Surat Municipal Corporation, who has without any inspection of the place in question, regularized the construction in violation of the provisions of GRUDA. It is also contended that while considering the bail application, result of the action of the accused is also required to be taken into consideration. It is submitted that 22 young boys and girls have lost their lives in the incident in question and more than 18 persons have received injuries. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor at this stage would contend that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Keshub Mahindra (supra) would not be applicable as the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was at the stage of framing of the charge and looking to the material placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the facts of the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order. 12. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sushil Ansal (supra) would also not be applicable in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that in the said case, after the conclusion of the trial, the matter went upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and relying upon the deposition of the witnesses and the material placed on record during the course of trial, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rendered the said decision. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, urged that this court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 14. Learned advocate, Mr. Dagli has also supported the submissions canvassed by learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State. It is submitted that as a Deputy Engineer of the Surat Municipal Corporation, it was the duty of the applicant to inspect the premises and, thereafter, regularize the illegal construction under the GRUDA as per the provision contained therein, however in connivance with co­accused, the order of regularization of illegal construction was passed. It is further submitted that while considering the application for bail, not only punishment prescribed for the alleged offence but overall impact on the Society is required to be considered by this Court. It is submitted that in the incident in question, 22 young boys and girls have lost their lives and more than 18 persons have received injuries. He, therefore, submitted that looking to the seriousness of the matter and looking to the role attributed to the applicant, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. 15. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it has emerged that the unfortunate incident has taken place at Takshasila Arcade on 24.05.2019. In the said incident, 22 young boys and girls have lost their lives and more than 18 persons have received injuries. It is not in dispute that the applicant was working as Deputy Engineer with Surat Municipal Corporation and he has passed an order of regularization of the illegal construction made by the co­accused in the premises in question. In the said incident, 22 young boys and girls have lost their lives and more than 18 persons have received injuries. It is not in dispute that the applicant was working as Deputy Engineer with Surat Municipal Corporation and he has passed an order of regularization of the illegal construction made by the co­accused in the premises in question. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the present applicant has without following procedure prescribed under the provision of the GRUDA and the Rules framed thereunder, in connivance with co­accused, passed an order of regularization of the illegal construction made by the co­accused. It transpires from the record that cut­off date as per the GRUDA was 28.03.2011, whereas illegal construction was made by the co­accused in the year 2012. Thus prima facie, in connivance with co­accused, though illegal construction was subsequent to cut­off date, same was regularized. Before passing an order of regularization of the illegal construction, the applicant has not checked that the fire safety equipments are installed in the premises in question or not. Thus, the applicant can be said to have prima facie knowledge that in absence of fire safety equipments being installed in the premises in question, at the time of fire, visitors or owners/occupiers of the premises may receive any injury or death may occur because of such incident of fire. Thus prima facie, it cannot be said that the allegation of only negligence is alleged against the applicant. 16. Looking to the gravity of the offence and as it is overall impact on the Society at large as well as considering the role attributed to the applicant, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. 17. The decision upon which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the applicant, would not render any assistance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As contended by learned Public Prosecutor, in case of Keshub Mahindra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case at the stage of framing of the charge, whereas in case of Sushil Ansal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case after the order of conviction was passed by the concerned trial court. 18. As contended by learned Public Prosecutor, in case of Keshub Mahindra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case at the stage of framing of the charge, whereas in case of Sushil Ansal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case after the order of conviction was passed by the concerned trial court. 18. Thus, looking to the material placed on record and from the papers of the chargesheet, prima facie case is made out against the present applicant for the commission of alleged offence. This Court has also considered the gravity of the offence in question. Therefore looking to overall facts of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the present applicant. The present application, therefore, stands rejected. Rule is discharged. However, liberty is reserved to file fresh application before the concerned Sessions Court after a period of six months if the trial is not commenced.