Crystal Tower developer remanded to police custody

Court questioned Ismail Supariwala on why he gave possession to residents when he knew he had not got an OC from the BMC

Abdul Razaq Ismail Supariwala, the developer of Crystal Tower at Parel was produced before the Bhoiwada Magistrate court on Thursday. He was remanded in police custody until August 27.

The fire broke out on the 12th floor at Crystal Tower at Parel. Four persons died and 22 people were injured. The court questioned the developer regarding why did he give possession to the residents when he had not obtained the Occupation Certificate from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).

The prosecution argued before the court that Sopariwala being the developer was aware of the need for an operational fire safety system in the high rise, but he had deliberately ignored it. The prosection further stated that there have been several incidents of fire recently in Mumbai and this is an issue to be dealt seriously. The police asked for further police custody stating that there was a need to probe if any other person was involved in not obtaining the Occupation Certificate. Thus they pleaded before the court for maximum custody for Sopariwala. The defence opposed the grant for police custody stating that the building was ready in 2012 and there is no police complaint filed by any resident for any illegality . Since the construction is completed the developer has been asking the residents to form a co-operative society and maintain the fire safety system as possession was given to them. The plea of the accused for judicial custody was rejected.

The Bhoiwada police had arrested Sopariwala, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304), act endangering life or personal safety of others (Sections 336, 337 and 338) of the Indian Penal Code and scrutiny and inspection of high-rise buildings (Section 3 (3)) of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Act 2006. Vinod Dattaram Mayekar, the Divisional Fire officer, Wadala command centre, is the complainant in this case.

The prosecution argued before the court that Sopariwala being the developer was aware of the need for an operational fire safety system in the high rise, but he had deliberately ignored it