Rau IAS Coaching Case: Rouse Avenue Court Reserves Order On Bail Plea Of CEO Abhishek Gupta

The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi, on Monday, reserved its decision regarding the regular bail petitions of Abhishek Gupta, CEO of RAU’s IAS Study Circle, and Coordinator Deshpal Singh.

The case is intricately tied to the tragic demise of three UPSC aspirants in the basement of the institution’s Old Rajender Nagar premises in July 2024.

During the hearing, Gupta’s legal representatives proposed a voluntary financial contribution of Rs 25 lakh to the Delhi Legal Services Authority as a measure of goodwill. However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) remained firm in its opposition to the bail requests.

Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna, after extensive deliberations involving the defense, the CBI, and the complainant’s counsel, chose to reserve judgment, with the pronouncement scheduled for later today.

Senior advocate Rebecca John, representing Gupta, referenced a Delhi High Court order that nullified the financial precondition of Rs 2.5 crore initially imposed. She argued that since the investigation had reached completion and the CBI had already submitted its charge sheet, there was no substantive reason to deny bail. Furthermore, she noted that Gupta had been out on interim bail since September 23, 2024.

Contrastingly, the senior public prosecutor for the CBI vehemently opposed the bail applications, contending that the gravity of the allegations necessitated stringent judicial scrutiny. He further argued that granting bail in such circumstances would establish an unfavorable legal precedent.

Advocate Abhijit Anand, appearing on behalf of complainant Delvin Suresh, reinforced this opposition, citing corruption as a fundamental concern in the case. Anand emphasized that an active investigation remains ongoing and, citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, asserted that bail should not be granted in cases where economic offenses are still under scrutiny. He underscored that corruption, classified as an economic offense, demands heightened judicial diligence.

Additionally, Anand highlighted that the building where the incident transpired was never officially sanctioned for educational purposes. He further alleged that the Fire No-Objection Certificate (NOC) had been procured through fraudulent means, compounding the legal infractions associated with the case. These factors, he argued, substantiate the need for continued detention of the accused.

It is noteworthy that the Delhi High Court has previously granted regular bail to four co-owners of the building implicated in the case.

As the legal fraternity keenly awaits the court’s verdict, the outcome of the bail applications for Gupta and Singh remains pivotal to the broader judicial narrative surrounding this case.