( 1 ) HEARD Mr. R. M. Vin, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. S. K. Patel, learned APP on behalf of the respondent State. "the relief has to be granted by the Court according to sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae. The Court has to administer justice between the parties and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. While exercising the powers, the Court must keep in mind the well settled principles of justice and fair play and should exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum. "[extract : Vaish Degree College Vs. Laxminarayan reported in AIR 1976 SC page 888 ]"law cannot be interpreted and enforced divorced from their effect on human beings for whom the laws are meant. Undoubtedly, rule of law must prevail but as is often said, rule of law must run akin to rule of life. And life of law is not logic but experience. . While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable considerations and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. "[extract : Municipal Board, Pratapgadh Vs. M. S. Chawla reported in AIR 1982 SC page 1493 ]"article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary although founded on legal inquiry. It is perfectly open for the Court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects; `courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependant upon considerations as of public interest. "[ Extract : Shivshankar Dal Mill Vs. State of Hyryana reported in AIR 1980 SC page 1037 ] rule. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the present petition are as under :-THE police Inspector Shri R. L. Chavda of Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City has filed a FIR being C. R. No. I-76 / 2001 of Navrangpura Police Station on 16th February, 2001 at 8. 15 P. M. against the present petitioner and three other unnamed persons for offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 120 (B) (i), 418 and 420 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (c) (i) and Section 7 (1) (i) (ii) (2) read with Section 42 of the Gujarat Ownership Act. The allegations in the FIR in short are that the petitioners in conspiracy with three other unnamed persons was responsible as `builder for defective construction of a building viz. `setu APARTMENTS which was made contrary to the rules and regulations under the Ownership Act by using sub standard materials knowingly and wilfully that the construction was likely to collapse resulting in damage to life and property on the fateful day viz. 26th January, 2001 and because of unprecedented earthquake of very high intensity and long duration, a portion of `setu Apartments got partially damaged resulting in the partial collapse of about four flats one over the other and the falling debris caused the death of one person named Deval who at the relevant time was a guest in the flat owned and occupied by one Madhukar Shankarlal, Flat No. 202. That on coming to know about the filing of the FIR, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered himself on 9th February, 2001 to the police at Navrangpura Police Station and after one remand, the applicant is in judicial custody since then. THE present petitioner has filed application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 599 of 2001 in the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad for releasing him on bail and