ORDER :

1. The applicant nos.1 and 2 who have been mentioned as accused nos.5 and 6 in the FIR which came to be registered with Mandvi Police Station, Surat, vide Part-A FIR No.11214032260040 of 2026 have preferred the present application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for regular bail. The applicant no.1 herein is the team leader, whereas, applicant no.2 is the supervisor of Mars Planning and Engineering Services Private Limited.

2. The FIR in question came to be lodged by the Superintending Engineer, Gujarat Water supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred as ‘GWSSB’ for short), alleging that a 15 meter high overhead water tank having a capacity of 9 lakh liters collapsed on 19.01.2026, near Tadkeshwar Village during the execution of a government water supply project. It is alleged that, the said collapse of overhead water tank resulted in injuries to three persons, and caused financial loss to the Government, as the tank had collapsed prior to being put to public use. Pursuant to the said FIR having been registered, the applicants herein along with other co-accused came to be arrested.

3. The applicants have prayed to be enlarged on regular bail on the grounds ‘A’ to ‘S’ which have been mentioned in the memo of the petition.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Jal S. Unwala assisted by Ms.Roma I. Fidlis learned advocate for the applicant. Mr.Unwala has reiterated the averments of the application. He has submitted that, two contracts were awarded so far as the said project of building overhead tank at village Tadkeshwar, District:Surat was concerned, viz. one, to construct the overhead tank and; two, to oversee the said construction. The applicants herein were awarded the second contract, and it was their responsibility to oversee the construction of the said overhead tank.

4.1 Mr.Unwala has submitted that, the soil testing certificate was given by the contractor which was forwarded by the applicants to the Executive Engineer, Public Health Works, GWSSB, Surat, which was duly approved. Mr.Unwala has submitted that, though there is an allegation that the soil testing report was forged, it cannot be attributed to the applicants since the same was submitted by the contractor.

4.2 Mr.Unwala has taken the Court through the contract document which was signed by the Executive Engineer and the authorised signatory of the consultant company.

According to Mr.Unwala, the term employer in the contract document relates to ‘GWSSB’ and the said overhead tank had collapsed during the second trial. The said project was never handed over to the Government, and since the trial of filling the tank with water was going on, it could not have been said that the project was completed and thereafter, the overhead water tank collapsed. Mr.Unwala has forcefully argued that, if at all the soil testing report was forged, the forgery was to be attributed to the contractor and not the applicants. The applicants were supposed to give the performance report only, after three trials, and not prior.

4.3 Mr.Unwala has categorically submitted that, the duties and responsibilities of the applicant were part of the contract document and they had neither shirked nor dodged from any of them. Mr.Unwala has questioned the bona-fides of the allegations against the applicants stating that, the privity of the contract was only for supervision of work and that too, the same being devoid of any control over the contractor. The applicants had to directly report to the GWSSB.

4.4 There is a clause for penalties in the contract itself, whereby, if the checks carried out by GWSSB disclosed that, the works carried out by the consultants did not meet the specified requirements, GWSSB may not pay the consultancy fees for their affected portion and in addition GWSSB may also impose a penalty limited to 10% of the consultancy fees of the portion affected. Mr.Unwala has stated that, in the event of such penalty clause, the applicants ought not to have been arraigned as ac