Delhi BMW Crash Case: Accused Gaganpreet Kaur Gets Bail

Dhaula Kuan BMW accident case

A Delhi court on Saturday granted bail to Gaganpreet Kaur, the woman accused of driving a BMW that fatally hit senior Finance Ministry official Navjot Singh and injured his wife near Dhaula Kuan earlier this month.

Kaur had been in judicial custody, which was last extended until September 27. Alongside her bail plea, the court was also hearing her request for the preservation of CCTV footage from the accident site.

Defence Calls It a “Simple Accident”

Senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, appearing for Kaur, argued that the crash should be treated as a “road accident” rather than culpable homicide. He told the court that while the incident was “unfortunate,” thousands of accidents occur every year without such severe charges.

Prosecution Flags “Suspicious Conduct”

The prosecution, however, opposed bail, alleging evidence tampering. They questioned why the injured victim was taken nearly 19 km away to a North Delhi hospital, bypassing closer facilities. Prosecutors also noted that Kaur was admitted to the ICU despite not suffering serious injuries, while the victim received minimal care.

Advocate Atul Kumar, representing the complainant, said the court also observed that action might be warranted against the so-called ambulance driver. Police later clarified that the vehicle used was actually a mortuary van, not a medical ambulance.

Family’s Objections

The victim’s family strongly opposed the bail order, alleging that Kaur’s decision to take the injured man to a hospital known to her family instead of the nearest one was deliberate. They also raised concerns over her failure to call an ambulance or inform the police immediately after the accident.

Kaur’s husband, Parikshit Kakkar, told Delhi Police that he was unsure how the accident occurred. He said his wife had informed him she was taking the injured to a hospital and that he later joined her after alerting his father-in-law.

The court granted bail subject to 7 conditions, though the complainant’s counsel said the family would review the order and decide on their next legal steps.