Abhishek Gupta’s lawyer stated that they are willing to make a voluntary contribution of Rs 25 lakh to the Delhi Legal Services Authority as part of their efforts to show goodwill. However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed the bail applications of both Gupta and Singh.
NEW DELHI: On Monday (10th Feb), the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi reserved its decision on the regular bail applications of Abhishek Gupta, the CEO of RAU’s IAS Study Circle, and Deshpal Singh, the coordinator of the institution.
The case is connected to the tragic deaths of three UPSC aspirants who passed away in July 2024 under mysterious circumstances in the basement of RAU’s IAS Study Circle in Old Rajender Nagar.
Abhishek Gupta’s lawyer stated that they are willing to make a voluntary contribution of Rs 25 lakh to the Delhi Legal Services Authority as part of their efforts to show goodwill. However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed the bail applications of both Gupta and Singh.
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anju Bajaj Chandna, after hearing the arguments from the lawyers of the accused, the CBI, and the complainant’s lawyer, has reserved the judgment on the bail plea. The court is expected to announce its order today.
Gupta’s senior advocate, Rebecca John, argued in court that the Delhi High Court had previously ruled that the financial condition of Rs 2.5 crore would be set aside. She also pointed out that the investigation had been completed and that the CBI had already filed a charge sheet in the case. Furthermore, she highlighted that Abhishek Gupta had been on interim bail since September 23, 2024.
In contrast, the senior public prosecutor representing the CBI opposed the bail requests. He emphasized that “a message should be sent to society in such cases” to deter future wrongdoing.
Advocate Abhijit Anand, representing Delvin Suresh, another party in the case, also opposed the bail plea. He raised concerns about the alleged involvement of corruption in the matter. He further argued that as the investigation was still ongoing, it would be inappropriate to grant bail.
“Bail should not be granted if the investigation is ongoing in the economic offence and corruption is an economic offence,” he stated.
Anand also submitted that the building where the incident occurred was not meant for educational purposes. He further claimed that the Fire No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the building was obtained through corrupt practices.
The Delhi High Court had previously granted regular bail to four co-owners of the building involved in this case.
