On Tuesday (30th July), a Delhi court reserved its decision on Manuj Kathuria’s bail plea, linked to a flooding incident at a coaching centre in Old Rajinder Nagar that resulted in the deaths of three civil service aspirants. The case involves allegations that Kathuria’s SUV drove through a rainwater-flooded street, causing the basement of the building to flood.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: A court in Delhi has reserved its decision on the bail plea of Manuj Kathuria, the SUV driver arrested in connection with the tragic flooding of a coaching centre’s basement in Old Rajinder Nagar. The flooding incident, which resulted in the deaths of three civil services aspirants, has drawn significant attention.
On Tuesday(30th July), Judicial Magistrate Vinod Kumar heard the arguments regarding Kathuria’s bail application but decided to reserve the order. The case revolves around the accusation that Kathuria drove his Force Gurkha SUV through a rainwater-flooded street, which allegedly caused the water to rise and breach the gates of the three-storey building, leading to the inundation of the basement.
Kathuria’s defense counsel argued that his client did not foresee the consequences of his actions and had no intention to cause the incident.
“He lacked both the knowledge of the impending outcome and the intention to cause the incident.”
-the counsel stated.
However, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava strongly opposed the bail plea. Srivastava argued that Kathuria’s actions went beyond mere negligence.
“Kathuria was not guilty of ‘contributory negligence,’ but he did exacerbate the incident.”
-he asserted.
ALSO READ:Delhi HC to Hear Plea for ‘High-Level’ Probe into Rajendra Nagar Coaching Centre Incident Today
In a dramatic turn during the court proceedings, the APP presented videos from Kathuria’s social media accounts as evidence. The videos depicted Kathuria driving the same SUV in a manner that suggested recklessness.
“I apologize for using this term, but he was ‘carefree and in a state of fun,’ which led to the incident.”
– Srivastava remarked, indicating that Kathuria’s actions were irresponsible and playful, rather than accidental.
The prosecution further emphasized that the police investigation is still in its early stages. Srivastava expressed concerns that if Kathuria were granted bail, he might influence the witnesses.
“The police investigation is still in its early stages, and if the accused is released on bail, there is a risk they may influence witnesses.”
– the APP argued.
Kathuria’s defense countered these claims, arguing that the arrest was unjust and unrelated individuals were being apprehended.
“The Delhi Police is arresting individuals unrelated to the case; how can I be held responsible for the incident?”
-Kathuria’s counsel questioned.
