While the floor covering of the bridge was replaced, its cable television was not replaced and it can not take the weight of the transformed floor covering, said the prosecution, mentioning a forensic report.
The contractors that carried out repairs of the unfortunate suspension bridge at Morbi in Gujarat were not certified to execute such jobs, the prosecution informed a court on Tuesday.
The collapse of the bridge on Sunday night claimed 135 lives.
While the floor covering of the bridge was changed, its wire was not replaced as well as it could not take the weight of the altered flooring, stated the prosecution, mentioning a forensic record.
The magistrate’s court remanded four of the jailed implicated– two supervisors of OREVA Team and also 2 sub-contractors who had actually repaired the bridge– in authorities guardianship till Saturday.
Principal Judicial Magistrate MJ Khan remanded 5 other arrested guys, consisting of guard and also ticket reservation clerks, in judicial wardship as cops did not seek their custodianship, stated prosecutor HS Panchal.
Authorities had on Monday filed a situation against 9 individuals under Indian Penal Code section 304 (liable murder not amounting to murder).
The 4 that were remanded in authorities guardianship were OREVA supervisors Dipak Parekh as well as Dinesh Dave, and also repairing contractors Prakash Parmar and also Devang Parmar, hired by the OREVA Group.
Mentioning Forensic Scientific Research Laboratory (FSL) report, Panchal told the court that forensic professionals thought that the primary wire of the bridge broke because of the weight of the brand-new flooring.
“Though the FSL report was presented in a secured cover, it was stated during the remand appeal that cords of the bridge were not replaced throughout the remodelling and also just flooring was transformed … weight of the bridge increased as a result of the four-layered aluminium sheets for the floor covering and also the wire snapped due to that weight,” Panchal told reporters.
The court was also educated that both the fixing service providers were “not certified” to accomplish such a job.
“In spite of that, these service providers were offered repair of the bridge in 2007 and then in 2022. So the accused’s safekeeping was needed to figure out what was the factor for choosing them and at whose instance they were picked,” the prosecutor stated.
Disclaimer: TheWorldsTimes (TWT) claims no credit for images featured on our blog site unless otherwise noted. The content used is copyrighted to its respectful owners and authors also we have given the resource link to the original sources whenever possible. If you still think that we have missed something, you can email us directly at theworldstimes@gmail.com and we will be removing that promptly. If you own the rights to any of the images and do not wish them to appear on TheWorldsTimes, please contact us and they will be promptly removed. We believe in providing proper attribution to the original author, artist, or photographer.
Resources: NDTV
Last Updated: 2 November 2022
