Delhi coaching centre deaths: Co-owners of basement move CBI court for bail after transfer of investigation

New Delhi [India], August 7 (ANI): The co-owners of a coaching centre basement in Delhi's old Rajinder Nagar where three UPSC aspirants drowned have moved a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court seeking bail after the investigation in the case was transferred to the CBI by the High Court.
The Rouse Avenue court will hear bail pleas today.
Principal District and Session judge Anuj Bajaj Chandana on Tuesday listed the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
Accused Harvinder, Tejinder, Parvinder and Sarabjeet have moved bail pleas through Advocates Kaushal Jeet Kait, Daksh Gupta, Jatin Gupta and others.
The accused have been booked under sections 105, 106(1), 115(2), 290, and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in a case registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar on July 27. The accused were arrested on July 28.
It is stated that subsequent to the order dated August 2, 2024, of the High Court, the Sessions Court at Tis Hazari, by way of an order dated August 5, 2024, dismissed the bail application with the liberty to approach the appropriate court.
Earlier, their applications were dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on July 31, 2024.
The court has granted Liberty to accused persons to approach the competent court.
Accused persons have sought bail on grounds that the Metropolitan Magistrate did not consider the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and the applicant, alongwith other co-owners, as good Samaritans themselves, went to the police station and was subjected to custody of the Investigating Officer, despite the fact that the IO had not even called them, which clearly shows the bona fide of the applicants.
It also stated that the trial court did not consider the submissions and material placed on record by the accused persons.
It is also stated that the magistrate court did not deal with the registered lease deed and its terms, which, in the eyes of law, have judicial sanctity and have a pivotal bearing on the status and locus of the co-owners.
It is also stated that the court failed to consider and did not appreciate the fact that the applicant had merely given the basement and third floor on lease for running the coaching centre, which is an activity permissible by the norms of MCD.
The accused persons further stated that while dismissing the bail applications, the court did not consider the fact that invocation of provision as stipulated under section 105 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the BNS Act does not in any manner attract the attention of the given facts of the case against the applicant and other co-owners, as they never "intended" nor had any "knowledge" to commit such a crime as alleged by the prosecution and also the fact that the prosecution could not establish and link the applicants with any act, much less the intention and knowledge to commit such a crime and therefore the applicability of Section 105 BNS by the prosecution is a sham and feeble attempts to increase the gravity of the case and also to circumvent the law laid down in the Arnesh Kumar and Satinder Antil judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
On July 31, while dismissing the bail plea, the court said that the allegations against the accused person are serious in nature. The court has been apprised that the role of other civic agencies are being investigated thoroughly. The investigation is at a very nascent stage. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, the plea of the accused seeking enlargement on bail was dismissed.
Advocate Amit Chaddha earlier had argued for accused Tejinder, Harvinder, Parvinder and Sarabjeet. They were part owners of the building where the coaching centre was being run.
They approached the police; they did not abscond. They could abscond, but they went beside the police. It shows their bona fide, Advocate Chadha submitted.
The entire case is that the place was leased out for some purposes, but it was used for another purpose. It is a violation under MCD rules, he added.
The library is not as big as in courts or in college. It was a place for study between the classes, Chaddha submitted.
He further submitted that there was no intention or knowledge. This incident occurred due to desilting and rain. It was an act of God that could be avoided by the authorities.
"It is an organised crime. You know what is happening in your area and keep your eyes closed," Chaddha argued.
Delhi police have invoked sections 106 (death caused by negligence) and 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
These sections have been invoked to bypass the judgement of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Antil, the counsel argued.
The counsel for the accused also produced a fire safety certificate, declaring it fit for occupancy and coaching. Other agencies also could do this. It was not my responsibility, he added.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava opposed the bail applications. He had submitted This very property in the name of Neelam Vohra. Her husband sold this property to the accused. Neelam Vohra had reconstructed this building. The Completion certificate shows that the basement was for warehouse purposes.
No contract can override the jurisdiction of the court. Sections 105 and 106 can be invoked together at the same time.
They are also covered under Section 45 (Abetment Proceedings). Why did not you check why there is so much crowd in the basement? It was meant for warehouse purposes. The abetment is made out against the accused persons. It is a very serious case. It is a very initial stage, APP argued. (ANI)