Bridge collapse: Construction firm owner out on bail
Prosecutor says he was absent from bail hearing, but marked present.
LAHORE:
The owner of Khalid Raoof & Company, which had constructed the pedestrian bridge that collapsed last week killing a truck driver, was granted bail on Tuesday.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Malik Khizar Hayat Khan granted after-arrest bail to Mian Khalid Raoof against surety bonds of Rs100,000.
Raoof had been sent on a 14-day judicial remand on July 3.
The truck driver’s brother, widow and seven daughters had, at the last hearing, submitted affidavits describing the collapse as an accident and saying that they did not wish to prosecute.
At an earlier hearing, Raoof’s counsel had said if Raoof was being blamed for the collapse, the four government entities that had inspected and cleared the bridge after construction should also be held responsible. He said that under the contract, the company’s liability for maintenance only extended to a year. The bridge, he added, had been built three years ago.
The counsel declared the collapse an accident, denying that substandard construction material had been used to build it. Had the truck’s bucket not collided with the bridge, he said, it wouldn’t have fallen. He contended that Section 302 did not apply in this case. The prosecution had said that the fatal collapse was a result of “sheer negligence” by the builder, who had used substandard material.
Present or absent?
The additional district public prosecutor (ADPP) representing the prosecution in this case has said that he was not present in the courtroom for Raoof’s bail hearing, even though he was marked as present in the court order.
According to the rules, the counsels for the complainant and the accused, as well as the ADPP concerned, must be present before proceedings on a bail petition can begin.
In the order sheet, Additional District and Sessions Judge Malik Khizar Hayat Khan stated that ADPP Imtiaz Gondal was present at the hearing. But Gondal told The Express Tribune that he was not present at the bail hearing. He said that he did not even learn that bail had been granted until Wednesday. He said he had been preparing for a bail hearing on Wednesday.
Legal experts said that in the absence of the ADPP, the judge should have adjourned the hearing. They said that the ADPP should have ensured his presence at the hearing.
A Lahore High Court officer said on the condition of anonymity that it was actually quite common for prosecutors to ask judges to mark them as present for hearings though they would be absent. In this case, however, the ADPP said that he had not made such a request to the judge.
Gondal said that he was scheduled to meet with the district prosecutor to discuss the matter on Thursday.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2012.
The owner of Khalid Raoof & Company, which had constructed the pedestrian bridge that collapsed last week killing a truck driver, was granted bail on Tuesday.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Malik Khizar Hayat Khan granted after-arrest bail to Mian Khalid Raoof against surety bonds of Rs100,000.
Raoof had been sent on a 14-day judicial remand on July 3.
The truck driver’s brother, widow and seven daughters had, at the last hearing, submitted affidavits describing the collapse as an accident and saying that they did not wish to prosecute.
At an earlier hearing, Raoof’s counsel had said if Raoof was being blamed for the collapse, the four government entities that had inspected and cleared the bridge after construction should also be held responsible. He said that under the contract, the company’s liability for maintenance only extended to a year. The bridge, he added, had been built three years ago.
The counsel declared the collapse an accident, denying that substandard construction material had been used to build it. Had the truck’s bucket not collided with the bridge, he said, it wouldn’t have fallen. He contended that Section 302 did not apply in this case. The prosecution had said that the fatal collapse was a result of “sheer negligence” by the builder, who had used substandard material.
Present or absent?
The additional district public prosecutor (ADPP) representing the prosecution in this case has said that he was not present in the courtroom for Raoof’s bail hearing, even though he was marked as present in the court order.
According to the rules, the counsels for the complainant and the accused, as well as the ADPP concerned, must be present before proceedings on a bail petition can begin.
In the order sheet, Additional District and Sessions Judge Malik Khizar Hayat Khan stated that ADPP Imtiaz Gondal was present at the hearing. But Gondal told The Express Tribune that he was not present at the bail hearing. He said that he did not even learn that bail had been granted until Wednesday. He said he had been preparing for a bail hearing on Wednesday.
Legal experts said that in the absence of the ADPP, the judge should have adjourned the hearing. They said that the ADPP should have ensured his presence at the hearing.
A Lahore High Court officer said on the condition of anonymity that it was actually quite common for prosecutors to ask judges to mark them as present for hearings though they would be absent. In this case, however, the ADPP said that he had not made such a request to the judge.
Gondal said that he was scheduled to meet with the district prosecutor to discuss the matter on Thursday.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2012.