New Delhi: The Rouse Avenue court on Friday rejected the bail applications of four co-owners of the basement where the drowning incident took place. Accused Sarabjit, Harvinder, Parvinder and Tejinder filed applications for regular bail. The accused were arrested on July 28.
In this incident, three UPSC aspirants drowned in the basement of a coaching centre.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna dismissed the bail applications, saying, “The investigation is at the initial stage. I am not willing to extend them on bail.” The detailed order is yet to be issued.
On August 17, the court reserved the order on the bail applications of four co-owners of the basement. A drowning incident took place in the basement of a coaching centre in the old Rajender Nagar.
The CBI lawyers opposed the bail applications on the grounds that the accused had knowledge of what had transpired. The basement was given to a training school and was used as a storeroom and examination hall.
On the other hand, the defendant’s lawyer argued that if a violation of the rules had occurred, the MCD should have taken action. The defendant had no knowledge that such an incident could occur.
Defence counsel Amir Chaddha in his arguments referred to the Supreme Court judgments and argued that Section 105 BNS did not apply to them.
At the time of the incident, they were not present at the spot, Chaddha argued.
He further argued that if any rule had been violated, the MCD officials should have sealed it. We had no knowledge of it. I could only be tried under the MCD laws. They would not run away. They have no criminal record.
During the hearing, the court noted that the basement was not intended to be used as a training facility, so he should not be held liable.
The judge asked, “What is the immediate cause of death?” To which Chaddha replied that the cause was malfunctioning storm drains. The judge asked, “Have you given any flexibility to the tenants?”
Chadha argued that under Section 304(2) of the Indian Penal Code, the basic ingredient is a high degree of knowledge.
“The actual cause of the incident was storm drains, something which the CBI has not mentioned even once. The High Court order mentions that the actual cause is dysfunctional storm drains,” Chaddha said.
“There is no evidence… what is going to be manipulated? What is left for me (the accused) to investigate?” Chaddha asked.
In response, the victim’s lawyer Abhijeet Anand argued that a building (a training institute) cannot be run for commercial purposes without a certificate.
The judge asked why the CBI is not coming forward to argue. The CBI counsel submitted that as per the lease agreement (knowledge), this property is not meant to be used for educational purposes. The basement could only be used for storage purposes. This was within their knowledge.
The CBI lawyer also argued that waterlogging is not an act of God. Even normal roads get flooded. Knowledge cannot be directly proven.
In his plea, the CBI prosecutor claimed that the accused had knowledge of the circumstances. The knowledge has been dismissed. The land has been encroached upon by all the constructions, he added.
“The basement was given to the training institute. It was given as a storeroom and examination hall. They had the knowledge,” the CBI lawyer argued.
The agency’s lawyer said the civic officials were busy making money and had no concern for the lives of others.
The CBI said there were 25 students present in the basement. A more serious incident could have occurred there.
“The investigation is underway. We may need them for the investigation but they should not be granted bail at this stage,” the CBI lawyer said.
In contrast, it was also argued that the Uphaar Cinema case is not applicable in this case. There was no illegal activity in the Uphaar Cinema case, it was intended for cinema.
According to the lease agreement, the basement had been rented out for coaching classes, the lawyer argued. The court ordered the jail authorities to take Sarabjit Singh to the hospital for removal of the stent on August 19. He has applied for interim bail.
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.