The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought CBI’s stand on the bail pleas of jailed co-owners of the Old Rajinder Nagar coaching centre basement, where three civil services aspirants died after drowning in July.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the bail applications of the co-owners of the basement — Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh and Sarbjit Singh — and asked the agency to file its reply.
”The incident was very unfortunate,” Justice Sharma remarked, while issuing notice.
Three civil service aspirants- Shreya Yadav, 25, of Uttar Pradesh, Tanya Soni, 25, from Telangana and Nevin Delvin, 24, from Kerala- died after the basement of the building housing Rau’s IAS Study Circle was flooded following heavy rain in central Delhi’s Old Rajinder Nagar on July 27 evening.
The case, being probed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), was transferred from the Delhi Police to the CBI by the high court.
The senior counsel appearing for the accused acknowledged that the incident was indeed ”sad” but asserted that his clients had merely leased the basement and another floor to the coaching centre and therefore cannot be held liable for the deaths.
”As a dispassionate student of law, I may be liable, yes, but to what extent?” asked senior advocate Mohit Mathur.
He said while leasing out the basement to Rau’s IAS Study Circle, the four brothers could not have thought that somebody would be killed.
At this stage, Mathur said, the plea was only for bail and not discharge. The four accused have been in custody for almost six weeks, he added.
Emphasising that parents send their children to coaching centres to study, the judge said the present matter ”should not be an ordinary case” and landlords should think four times before letting out their properties.
”Why did such a thing happen? You have to think about that also. You tell me what steps should be taken so that it is not repeated in future. This should not be an ordinary case.
”You let out your property for commercial and coaching purpose..Court only wants that the next time a landlord lets out, the landlord should think four times,” the court said.
The court asked the CBI counsel to “give concrete evidence” with respect to the accountability of the basement co-owners as alleged by it and wanted to know if action has been taken against city officials.
Mathur claimed the CBI has ”not touched a single deputy commissioner of MCD (Municipal Corporation of Delhi)” in the case, and added that the agency ”cannot pick and choose”.
The CBI counsel said the central agency was probing the city authorities as also the issue of waterlogging in the area which an individual had flagged earlier while voicing apprehension that such a tragedy could happen there.
”Was MCD sleeping? Why did they not seal it? What was the police doing?” the court retorted.
The CBI counsel said the agency was ”acting step by step”.
Maintaining that the court’s contentions were not ”adversarial”, Justice Sharma asked the CBI to present before the bench the evidence it has gathered to show the ”intention” the accused.
”In Minto bridge, every year there is waterlogging. If there is a complaint, every officer will be hauled up (under BNS section 105)? Give concrete evidence.. You are a premier agency,” the court said, adding ”You have to come with a concrete thing, not (something) in the air.” Listing the matter for further hearing on September 11, the court also permitted the father of one of the deceased aspirants to file a ”short reply” to the bail pleas.
A sessions court had earlier rejected the bail applications moved by the accused, saying the CBI probe was at an initial stage and their specific roles in the tragedy had to be ascertained.
In the application filed in the high court, one of the co-owners has said the trial court, while denying them bail, failed to consider that the co-owners had let out the basement and the third floor of the building on lease for running the coaching centre, an activity permissible under the MCD norms, and that they never intended to commit such an offence nor had any knowledge of it.
”The applicant is merely the landlord and does not play any role whatsoever in the management or day to day business of the tenants. The applicant had let out the property on rental basis to RAU’S IAS STUDY CIRCLE vide lease deed dated 05.01.2022 for a period of 9 years commencing from 01.01.2022.
”It is pertinent to mention that as per the lease deed the lessee is responsible for procuring necessary permissions from local authorities like DDA, MCD and other local authorities for running the coaching centre within permissible parameters,” the petition says.
They have said in the bail application that the trial court did not consider the fact that the co-owners, who have not been named in the FIR, voluntarily went to the police station after the incident, which clearly shows their bonafide.
Comments
0 comment