Today(7th August), the Rouse Avenue court will hear the bail pleas of the co-owners of a Delhi coaching centre basement where three UPSC aspirants drowned. This follows the High Court’s decision to transfer the case’s investigation to the CBI.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: The co-owners of a coaching centre basement in Delhi’s old Rajinder Nagar, where three UPSC aspirants tragically drowned, have sought bail from a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court. This move follows the High Court’s decision to transfer the case’s investigation to the CBI.
Bail Hearing Scheduled
The Rouse Avenue court is set to hear the bail pleas today(on 7th August). Principal District and Session judge Anuj Bajaj Chandana scheduled the hearing for Wednesday after listing the matter on Tuesday(6th August).
Legal Representation
The accused, identified as Harvinder, Tejinder, Parvinder, and Sarabjeet, have submitted their bail pleas through their legal representatives, Advocates Kaushal Jeet Kait, Daksh Gupta, Jatin Gupta, and others.
Charges and Arrests
The charges against the accused include sections 105, 106(1), 115(2), 290, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. These charges stem from a case registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar on July 27, leading to the arrests on July 28.
Previous Bail Attempts
The Sessions Court at Tis Hazari previously dismissed their bail applications on August 5, 2024, following an earlier rejection by the Metropolitan Magistrate on July 31, 2024. However, the courts have granted the accused the liberty to approach the competent court.
Grounds for Bail
The accused have presented several grounds for their bail plea. They argue that the Metropolitan Magistrate did not consider that the applicant was not named in the FIR. They assert that they, along with other co-owners, acted as good Samaritans by voluntarily going to the police station and subjecting themselves to the Investigating Officer’s custody, despite not being called in. This, they claim, demonstrates their bona fide intentions.
Moreover, they contend that the trial court did not consider the submissions and material placed on record by the accused persons. They highlight that the magistrate court overlooked the registered lease deed and its terms, which hold judicial sanctity and are crucial to understanding the co-owners’ status and locus.
The co-owners further argue that the court failed to appreciate that they had merely leased the basement and third floor for running the coaching centre, which is permissible under MCD norms. They state that the invocation of section 105 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the BNS Act is not applicable in their case. They emphasize that they never “intended” nor had any “knowledge” to commit such a crime, as alleged by the prosecution.
ALSO READ:“Won’t Wait for Centre”: AAP | Delhi Govt To Introduce New Law To Regulate Coaching Centres
The accused argue that the prosecution has not established any link between them and the alleged crime. They claim that the application of Section 105 BNS by the prosecution is an attempt to “increase the gravity of the case” and circumvent the law as laid down in the Arnesh Kumar and Satinder Antil judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
On July 31, the court denied the bail plea of several accused individuals, citing the severe nature of the allegations against them. The court emphasized that the investigation is in its early stages and is being conducted meticulously, including the roles of other civic agencies.
Advocate Amit Chaddha, representing the accused Tejinder, Harvinder, Parvinder, and Sarabjeet, argued their case passionately. These individuals were partial owners of the building where the coaching center in question was operating.
“They approached the police rather than fleeing. Although they could have absconded, they chose to stay with the police, demonstrating their good faith.”
-Advocate Chaddha submitted.
The core issue revolves around the building’s use. The premises were leased for one purpose but were used for another, allegedly violating Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) regulations. Chaddha elaborated on this point, stating-
“The case centers around the fact that the premises were leased for one purpose but were used for another, which constitutes a violation of MCD rules.”
Addressing the nature of the facility, Chaddha explained-
“The library is not as large as those in courts or colleges; it was simply a study space between classes.”
Chaddha further contended that the incident occurred without any malicious intent or prior knowledge, attributing the cause to natural circumstances. This incident occurred due to desilting and rain. It was an act of God that could be avoided by the authorities.
However, Chaddha also expressed strong criticism of the handling of the situation, arguing-
“It is an organized crime. You are aware of what’s happening in your area but choose to ignore it.”
The Delhi police have charged the accused under sections 106 (death caused by negligence) and 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the law. These charges were strategically applied, according to Chaddha, to circumvent the Supreme Court’s rulings in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Antil.
“These sections have been invoked to circumvent the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Arnesh Kumar and Satender Antil cases.”
– the counsel argued.
In their defense, the accused’s counsel presented a fire safety certificate indicating that the building was fit for occupancy and use as a coaching center. He insisted that it was not their responsibility alone to ensure compliance with safety standards, stating-
“Other agencies could have handled this as well; it was not solely my responsibility.”
On the other side, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava strongly opposed the bail applications. He highlighted that the property, initially owned by Neelam Vohra and later sold by her husband to the accused, had been reconstructed, with the basement designated for warehouse purposes.
“This property, registered under Neelam Vohra’s name, was sold to the accused by her husband. Neelam Vohra had reconstructed the building, and the completion certificate indicates that the basement was intended for warehouse use.”
-Srivastava submitted.
Srivastava pointed out the significant discrepancies and the potential for abetment charges.
“No contract can override the court’s jurisdiction. Sections 105 and 106 can be invoked simultaneously.”
– he argued.
He questioned the oversight regarding the building’s use, noting-
“Why didn’t you investigate the large crowd in the basement, which was intended for warehouse use? This indicates that abetment charges are applicable to the accused.”
