Delhi Coaching Centre Deaths: Court Reserves Order on SUV Driver’s Bail Plea

Delhi Coaching Centre

Delhi’s Tis Hazari court reserved its order on Thursday regarding the bail plea of Manuj Kathuria, an SUV driver accused of causing the deaths of three UPSC aspirants at a coaching center in Old Rajinder Nagar. Kathuria is alleged to have driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, leading to water entering the basement of the building.

After hearing the bail plea, Additional Sessions Judge Rakesh Kumar-IV reserved his order. Meanwhile, Delhi police have submitted a status report on Kathuria’s bail plea, stating that they are not pursuing Section 105 (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The accused’s counsel argued that since all offences are now bailable, bail should be granted.

This plea follows the Tis Hazari court’s dismissal of bail applications from Kathuria and four others involved in the case on Wednesday. Judicial Magistrate First Class Vinod Kumar, in his July 31 order, observed that CCTV footage of the incident shows Kathuria driving his vehicle at high speed on a waterlogged road, causing a significant displacement of water. This led to the gate of the premises giving way and water flooding the basement, resulting in the deaths of three individuals.

The Judicial Magistrate noted that the CCTV footage also shows a passerby attempting to warn Kathuria of the danger ahead, but he did not heed the warning. The bail plea claimed that several CCTV videos of the incident are circulating on social media; however, the police are relying on three specific videos, copies of which have not been provided to the accused. The bail application, filed through advocates Rakesh Malhotra and RK Tripathi, is the second such plea from the accused.

Delhi police alleged that Kathuria was driving at high speed, causing a wave of water that crashed through three iron gates. The accused’s plea asserts that he was not involved in the offence and was falsely implicated, arguing that any involvement was speculative.

During the bail hearing, Kathuria’s counsel contended that there was no overspeeding and questioned why he was booked under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the BNSS despite driving at high speed. The counsel also requested that the court direct the Investigation Officer (IO) to preserve and produce CCTV footage from before and after the incident.

The counsel further argued that Kathuria had no reason to believe his actions would cause such an incident and criticized the lack of police action against waterlogging. The argument was made that the actual culprits should be the institute and the officer responsible for civic amenities. It was also noted that Kathuria has a medical history and argued that bail should be granted due to health concerns, as continued custody might lead to an infection.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava opposed the bail application, showing a picture of the vehicle Kathuria was driving. He highlighted that the accused, fond of off-road vehicles, was driving a Gurkha with an upward silencer, similar to a tractor. The APP argued that Kathuria should have slowed down in the waterlogged conditions and that his actions exacerbated the situation. He also requested the court to consider that the investigation is in its early stages and that Kathuria, being a local resident, might influence witnesses.

The APP played YouTube videos of Kathuria, depicting him driving in hilly terrains, to argue that he knew how to drive appropriately.