The four co-owners of a coaching centre in Old Rajinder Nagar have sought bail from the Delhi High Court after their previous bail request was denied by the trial court. The denial was based on their liability for permitting the basement, where three IAS aspirants drowned on July 27, 2024, to be used as a coaching institute.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The four co-owners of a basement coaching centre in Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, have approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail after their previous application was denied by the trial court. The case revolves around a tragic incident that occurred on July 27, 2024, when three IAS aspirants tragically drowned in the basement of the coaching centre.
Trial Court Denies Bail to Co-Owners
On Friday, the trial court rejected the bail applications of the four co-owners, holding them liable for the illegal act of permitting the basement to be used as a coaching institute. The court emphasized that the co-owners’ actions were directly connected to the fatal incident.
Fresh Bail Plea in Delhi High Court
In their fresh bail plea filed in the Delhi High Court, the co-owners argue that the trial court failed to consider several crucial aspects. Firstly, they point out that they were not named in the First Information Report (FIR) related to the case. The plea also emphasizes that the co-owners voluntarily reported to the police station and fully cooperated with the investigation, even though they were not initially summoned by the investigating officer.
Their legal counsel contends that this cooperation demonstrated the co-owners’ bona fides and their willingness to assist in the investigation. Despite this, their initial bail application was denied by the trial court.
The co-owners’ bail plea further argues that the trial court overlooked a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence—vicarious liability does not apply in such cases.
The plea asserts that –
“Strict criminal liability applies solely to the individual who directly commits the criminal act.”
and that this principle should exempt the co-owners from being held criminally responsible for the tragedy.
Previous Bail Application and the “Act of God” Defense
In their previous bail application, the accused had attempted to mitigate their responsibility by attributing the tragic incident to heavy rainfall, which they described as an “act of God.” They argued that the torrential downpour on the day of the incident was beyond their control and a significant factor in the unfortunate deaths. Additionally, they placed some of the blame on the local civic agency, citing the area’s dysfunctional sewer system as a contributing factor to the flooding in the basement.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is handling the case, presented a different narrative in court. The CBI pointed out that the basement was officially designated for storage purposes only, not for educational activities. The agency argued that the accused were fully aware of the risks associated with operating a coaching centre in a basement that was not intended for such use.
The court also took into account the testimony of a Karol Bagh resident who had previously raised concerns about the coaching centre, Rau’s IAS, operating a classroom in the basement without proper permissions. The resident had warned of the potential for a “major accident” due to the illegal use of the basement just a month before the tragic incident occurred.
In its decision to deny bail, the trial court noted that the accused were fully aware that allowing the illegal use of the basement was endangering lives. The court observed that the illegal operation of the coaching centre was directly connected to the deaths of the three IAS aspirants, thus making the co-owners liable for the tragic outcome.
