Coaching centre deaths: Delhi court reserves order on bail pleas of four basement co-owners

New Delhi [India], August 17 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Saturday reserved order on the bail pleas of four co-owners of basemen in the drowning incident that took place in the basement of a coaching centre in old Rajender Nagar of Delhi leading to death of three UPSC aspirants on July 27.

The counsels for CBI opposed the bail applications on the grounds that the accused knew that the basement was given to the coaching institute for storage and examination hall.

On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that if there was a violation of the rules, MCD should have taken action. The accused person did not know that such an incident may happen.

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anju Bajaj Chandna reserved an order on the bail pleas of Sarabjit Singh, Harvinder Singh, Parvinder Singh and Tejinder Singh.

Defence Counsel Amir Chaddha in his arguements referred to Supreme judgements and submitted that the section 105 BNS wasn’t applied to them.

At the time of the incident, they were not present at the spot, Chaddha argued.

He further argued “If there was a violation of rules, MCD officials should have sealed it. We didn’t know. I could be tried under MCD laws only. They would not flee. They have clean antecedents.”

During the hearing, the court pointed out that the basement was not meant for coaching and questioned why they shouldn’t be held responsible.

The Judge asked, “What is the proximate cause of death”?

To this, Chaddha replied that the cause is dysfunctional stormwater drains.

The Judge questioned, “You have given the tenants the flexibility?”

Chadha argued that in section 304(2) IPC, the basic ingredient is a high degree of knowledge.

“The real cause of the incident was storm water drains (SWDs), the CBI has not mentioned that even once. In the High Court order, it is mentioned that the real cause is dysfunctional SWDs,” said Chaddha.

“There is no evidence…so what will be tampered with? What is left to be investigated from me,” Chaddha asked.

To this, advocate Abhijeet Anand, the counsel for victim argued that without a certificate, a building could not be run for commercial purposes.

“Without a certificate, you can’t run a building for commercial purposes for a coaching institute,” Anand said.

The Judge asked, “Why is the CBI coming forward to argue?”

The CBI counsel submitted that as per the lease deed (knowledge), the property is not meant to be used for educational purposes. The basement could only be used for storage purposes. This was in their knowledge.

The CBI counsel also argued that water logging is not an act of God and that even normal roads are flooded. Knowledge can’t be proven directly.

In his arguments, the Public Prosecutor for CBI said that the accused persons had the knowledge and that knowledge was withdrawn from the circumstances. The land has been encroached on by all buildings, he added.

“The basement was given to a coaching institute. It was given for storage and exam hall. They knew,” the CBI counsel argued.

The counsel for the agency said that the officers of civic authorities were engaging in making money and were not concerned with the lives of others.

Three lives vanished, and they are suffocating in jail.

The CBI further said that there were 25 students present in the basement and there could have occurred a more grave incident.

“The investigation is going on, we may require them for investigation, they should not be granted bail at this stage,” the counsel for CBI submitted.

In rebuttal, it was also submitted that the Uphar cinema case is not applicable in this case. There were not any illegal activities in the Uphar cinema case, it was meant for cinema.

Even as per the lease deed, the basement was rented out for coaching, the counsel argued.

He also opposed the submissions of the defence counsel that accused persons are businessmen and they are the roots in society.

Many businessmen have left India. Vijay Malya, Neerav Modi, CBI argued.

“They are influential, they can influence the investigation, they are not entitled to bail,” he added.

Advocate Abhijit Anand, Counsel for the victim urged the court to summon to building plan to see whether the basement was legally or illegally constructed. The same was rejected by the court.

He also submitted that the Supreme Court said that even if there is not an intention behind an incident, you should know that such incident may happen.

Such incidents will fall under the category of culpable Homicide not amounting to murder.

In rebuttal, the defence counsel Amit Chaddha submitted that this case was transferred to CBI on August 2 and FIR was lodged on August 6.

“Still, the CBI has not examined any civic agency official. What have you done to the complaint which was filed on June 26 alleging violation of MCD rules”? Chaddha questioned.

“There was a complaint filed by Kapil Kushwaha which has not been examined by the MCD official There are only arguments only, Chaddha argued.

“It is 21 days of custody. why do you (CBI) want them to be kept in custody,” Chaddha said.

The court directed that jail authorities take Sarabjit Singh to the hospital for the Removal of the stent on August 19. He sought an interim bail.