The co-owners of a coaching center in Delhi’s old Rajinder Nagar, where 3 UPSC aspirants tragically drowned, have applied for bail in a special Central Bureau of Investigation court. This follows the High Court’s decision to transfer the case to the CBI.
The Rouse Avenue court is set to hear the bail pleas. Principal District and Sessions Judge Anuj Bajaj Chandana scheduled the hearing for today.
The accused—Harvinder, Tejinder, Parvinder, and Sarabjeet—filed their bail applications through advocates Kaushal Jeet Kait, Daksh Gupta, Jatin Gupta, and others. They face charges under sections 105, 106(1), 115(2), 290, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following an FIR registered at Rajinder Nagar Police Station on July 27. They were arrested on July 28.
On August 2, 2024, the High Court permitted the accused to approach the appropriate court after the Sessions Court at Tis Hazari dismissed their bail application on August 5, 2024. Previously, their applications were also rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate on July 31, 2024.
The accused argue that the Metropolitan Magistrate failed to consider that they were not named in the FIR. They voluntarily went to the police station as good Samaritans and were taken into custody by the Investigating Officer without being summoned, demonstrating their bona fides.
The defense also contends that the trial court did not properly evaluate the registered lease deed, which legally impacts the status of the co-owners. They maintain that they leased the basement and third floor for running a coaching center, an activity allowed by MCD norms.
The accused further assert that the court overlooked the lack of intention or knowledge to commit the alleged crime. They argue that the invocation of Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the BNS Act is inappropriate given the circumstances. They claim the prosecution’s application of this section is an attempt to inflate the severity of the case, contradicting precedents set by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar and Satinder Antil judgments.
During the July 31 bail plea dismissal, the court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations and the early stage of the investigation, which includes examining the roles of other civic agencies.
Advocate Amit Chaddha, representing the accused, argued that the accused approached the police instead of absconding, showing their good faith. He emphasized that the property was leased for permissible activities, and the incident occurred due to unforeseen desilting and rain, not negligence.
Delhi Police have charged the accused under sections 106 (death caused by negligence) and 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which the defense argues is an attempt to circumvent Supreme Court guidelines.
Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava opposed the bail applications, highlighting that the property, originally for warehouse purposes, was sold by Neelam Vohra, who reconstructed the building. He argued that the accused should have monitored the overcrowding and that sections 105 and 106 are applicable simultaneously, making the case against the accused substantial at this initial investigation stage.
