ORDER : 1. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO.11208053240496 of 2024 registered with Rajkot Taluka Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 36, 304, 308, 337, 338, 465, 466, 471, 474, 201, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the applicant herein was working as a Town Planning Officer in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation at the relevant time and Ward No.10 of the City of Rajkot, wherein the TRP Game Zone was situated fell under the supervision of the present applicant. The role attributed to the present applicant in the present offence is to the effect that the applicant had taken no steps for removal of illegal construction of the game zone though the order under Section 267 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act had been passed in that regard. Thus, what is attributed to the present applicant is an omission on his part to take an action for removal of construction. No positive overt act is attributed to the present applicant, which could have contributed to the incident of fire. 2.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has submitted that it may be argued against the present applicant by prosecution that after the incident, the applicant had tried to manipulate the record of the Municipal Corporation. However, since another offence in that regard is registered against the present applicant, the same should not fall part of the present offence. At best, the applicant can be held responsible for negligence and dereliction of duty, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be an offence. The applicant may be subjected to any departmental action for the same, but not criminal prosecution. The dereliction of duty alleged against the present applicant was not with an intent to do any undue favour to anybody. It was merely negligence on the part of the present applicant. It also cannot be said that the fire had taken place because of an illegal construction. In fact, at the time of fire, the work of wielding was going on in the premises, which had caused the fire, and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was in any manner responsible for the same. It also cannot be said that the fire had taken place because of an illegal construction. In fact, at the time of fire, the work of wielding was going on in the premises, which had caused the fire, and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was in any manner responsible for the same. 2.2 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has further argued that the municipal corporation had received an application for regularization of the construction in question on 22.04.2024 and necessary fee for the same had also been received by the corporation, and therefore, in view of the provisions of the Gujarat Regulation of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 (herein after referred to as the “GRUDA”), the action for demolition of illegal construction could not have been taken till the application for regularization was finally decided. 2.3 Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that it is the case of prosecution that the minutes of meeting had been manipulated at the behest of the present applicant. However, there is no material in that regard collected during the course of investigation. The allegedly manipulated minutes of meeting did not contain anything, which would help any of the accused. Thus, no malicious intention can be attributed to anybody including the present applicant in that regard. It is also the case of prosecution that an outward register of a particular branch had been burnt at the behest of the present applicant. In fact, the said aspect comes to fore for the first time in the statement of one Ambesh Dave dated 12.06.2024 i.e. much after the incident and registration of the FIR. 2.4 Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the investigation papers indicate that the fact of non-removal of illegal construction was required to be brought to the notice of the present applicant by the subordinate staff and the same was not brought to the notice of the present applicant, and therefore, there was no question of the applicant taking any action for removal of the same. The prosecution also seeks to rely upon the provision of Section 36 of the IPC. However, that would take the case of prosecution no further so far as the applicant is concerned. The prosecution also seeks to rely upon the provision of Section 36 of the IPC. However, that would take the case of prosecution no further so far as the applicant is concerned. 2.5 Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the offence of culpable homicide is not made out against the applicant, as no intention or knowledge as required under Section 299 of the IPC on the part of the present applicant is coming forth. 2.6 The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 30.05.2024 and since then he is in custody. The prosecution has cited as many as 365 witnesses in the charge-sheet. The trial of the offence has not yet commenced, as no charge has been framed against the accused, and therefore, there is no possibility of the trial against the applicant concluding in the near future. Even if it is assumed that the trial would be conducted on day to day basis, the same would not conclude by any means within one year from the day on which it starts. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions. 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the applicant herein was working as a Town Planning Officer in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation at the relevant time. In June, 2023, an order for demolition of illegal construction of the game zone had been passed with the signature of the applicant himself. However, no action whatsoever had been taken over the said order by the present applicant. 3.1 Learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the conduct on the part of the present applicant post the incident of fire is also required to be viewed seriously. The Division Bench of this Court had taken suo-motu cognizance of the incident of fire on 26.05.2024 i.e. the day after the incident of fire and the municipal corporations of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat and Rajkot were directed to report as to under what provisions of law these Corporations let these gaming zones, recreational facilities be set up or continued and be put to use. The applicant herein with an intention to show his action with regard to the game zone in question, had manipulated the record of the corporation, the minutes of the meetings of the present applicant with his subordinates, which had never taken place, were prepared. The application for regularization of the unauthorized construction, which was received much prior to the incident had been inserted in the inward register of the particular branch by manipulating the inward register, certain queries were shown to have been raised in that regard and were also shown the same to have been communicated by preparing a fresh outward register by destroying the outward register, which was in use at the relevant time. The applicant has also been booked for possessing the assets, which are disproportionate to his known source of income by 410%. This shows the criminal mind set on the part of the applicant. 3.2. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the omission alleged against the applicant are also culpable under the provisions of Section 36 of the IPC. The offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC is clearly made out against the present applicant. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Narendrasinh Jadeja appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the present application. 5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. The application emanates from the FIR pertaining to an incident of fire, which took place on 25.05.2024 in a game zone in question and 27 people had died and several others were seriously injured. The incident has been rightly described as a man made disaster by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The applicant herein had been working as a Town Planning Officer with Rajkot Municipal Corporation at the relevant time and Ward No.10 of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, wherein the game zone was situated was under the supervision of the present applicant. The material available on record indicates that a notice under Section 260 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (for short GPMC Act) had been issued for removal of an illegal construction of the game zone and an order under Section 260(2) had also been passed with regard to the construction in question. The material available on record indicates that a notice under Section 260 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (for short GPMC Act) had been issued for removal of an illegal construction of the game zone and an order under Section 260(2) had also been passed with regard to the construction in question. Thereafter, in the month of June, 2023, an order under Section 267 of the GPMC Act had also been passed with the signature of the present applicant by which it was required that the illegal construction in question was removed within a period of 7 days. However, the said construction was not removed and the activity of game zone was allowed to continue. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that since an application for regularization of construction had been submitted, the action for removal of the unauthorized construction could not be taken under the provisions of GRUDA. The provisions of the said Act more particularly, Section 5 of the Act requires a notice to be issued to an owner or occupier or any order issued or decision taken under the relevant law requiring such owner or occupier to remove or pull down or alter unauthorized development and such notice is required to be issued prior to 30.09.2022. In present case, no such notice was issued prior to 30.09.2022. Such notice came to be issued after 30.09.2022, and therefore, no such application was maintainable qua the construction in question under the provision of the GRUDA, and therefore, as appearing from the record, though such application was received in April-2024, the same was not inwarded till the date of incident. Therefore, it was very much clear in the mind of the applicant and the other office bearers of the municipal corporation that such application was not maintainable in the eye of law and hence, it is not correct on the part of the applicant to contend that since an application for regularization was submitted, no action could have been taken for removal of the unauthorized construction. In fact, submission of an application for regularization of construction also appears to be an eye wash. It is also sought to be contended that the fact the illegal construction in question was not removed despite the order under Section 267 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act was not brought to the notice of the applicant. In fact, submission of an application for regularization of construction also appears to be an eye wash. It is also sought to be contended that the fact the illegal construction in question was not removed despite the order under Section 267 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act was not brought to the notice of the applicant. When an order for removal of construction had been passed with the signature of the present applicant, it was the duty on the part of the present applicant to ensure that the orders passed under his signature were duly complied with. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appears to be right in contending that the conduct on the part of the present applicant post the incident requires to be viewed seriously. As stated herein above, the Division Bench of this Court had taken suo-motu cognizance of the incident of fire and all the municipal corporations of the State including Rajkot Municipal Corporation were asked to provide certain information as regard such game zones situated in their limits. The material available on record also suggests that the applicant knew that the present FIR was registered with regard to incident of fire, which had taken place on 25.05.2024 and that he may also feel heat in this regard, and therefore, with an intention to shield him and to avoid any action against him under the law, he had tried to manipulate certain records of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. The material available on record suggests that after the incident of fire, the applicant had called for the meeting of his subordinates and they were asked to sign several pre-dated minutes for the meetings, which had never taken place. This was with an intention to show that the applicant had taken the action with regard to an illegal construction in question. It also appears from the record that organizers of the said game zone had submitted an application for regularization of an illegal construction along with requisite fees. Though the said application had been received by the Corporation in the month of April-2024, the same was not inwarded in the inward register of the concerned branch and it was only after the incident of fire the inward register of a particular branch was manipulated and the said application was sought to be entered in the inward register at Sr.Nos.2739 & 2740 by manipulating those entries. The matter does not stop here. The record was also created to show that the query had been raised with regard to the said application and to project that the said query had been communicated further, the outward register of a particular branch of Rajkot Municipal Corporation had also been changed. The outward register, which existed then, had been destroyed just to accommodate the entry with regard to communication of the query in question in the said register and after destruction of the earlier register a new register had been prepared, wherein the entry with regard to communication of the said query had been conveniently accommodated. This manipulation of the record had taken place at the behest of the present applicant, who was at the helm of affairs of the Town Planning Branch of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. These actions on the part of the present applicant clearly suggest that the applicant very well knew that he would be held responsible for the incident of fire, and therefore, this cover of exercise was undertaken by him. These facts also show that it was not mere negligence on the part of the applicant in not taking action against the illegal construction but it was deliberate omission on his part. 7. The applicant herein is the first amongst the persons, who can be held primarily liable for the incident of fire. The conduct on the part of the present applicant is an epitome of insensitive bureaucratic approach and red tapism and the fact that the applicant has also been booked for possessing the assets disproportionate to the known source of his income, this also smacks of personal greed. Surprisingly or perhaps conveniently, this aspect is kept quiet and there is no investigation at all on it. The inaction on the part of the present applicant for removal of illegal construction may not be termed as mere negligence or dereliction of duty. There is a reason to believe at this stage that it was with an intention to do an undue favour to the organizers of the game zone enabling them to earn profit. It is really unfortunate that 27 people had to die unfortunate, unnatural and untimely deaths for the angle of the applicant possessing disproportionate assets to come to notice. The offence of culpable homicide may or may not be made out against the present applicant. It is really unfortunate that 27 people had to die unfortunate, unnatural and untimely deaths for the angle of the applicant possessing disproportionate assets to come to notice. The offence of culpable homicide may or may not be made out against the present applicant. However, the fact that 27 people had died unfortunately because of inaction on the part of the present applicant, cannot be viewed lightly. The death of 27 people would weigh heavily against the personal liberty of the present applicant. Having regard to the same, no case is made out to release the present applicant on bail. Hence, the present application stand dismissed.