New Delhi: Rouse Avenue court on Friday rejected the bail pleas of four co-owners of the basement where the drowning incident happened. Accused Sarabjit, Harvinder, Parvinder and Tejinder moved pleas seeking regular bail. The accused were arrested on July 28.
In this incident, three UPSC aspirants were drowned in the basement of a coaching centre.
Principal District and Sessions judge Anju Bajaj Chandna dismissed the bail applications and said, “Investigation is at the initial stage. I am not inclined to enlarge them on bail.” The detailed order is yet to be uploaded.
The court on August 17 reserved the order on the bail pleas of four co-owners of the basement. A drowning incident took place in the basement of a coaching centre in old Rajender Nagar.
Counsels for CBI opposed the bail applications on the ground that the accused had the knowledge. The basement was given to a coaching institute. It was given for storage and examination hall.
On the other hand, counsel for the accused argued that if there was a violation of rules, MCD should have taken action. The accused person did not had the knowledge that such an incident may happen.
Defence Counsel Amir Chaddha in his arguments 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 that if there was a violation of rules, MCD officials should have sealed it. We didn’t had knowledge. 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 the purpose of coaching. So shouldn’t you 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 (Accused),” Chaddha asked.
To this, advocate Abhijeet Anand, counsel for the victim argued that without a certificate, you can’t run a building for commercial purposes — coaching institute.
The Judge asked why is CBI not coming forward to argue? The CBI counsel submitted that as per the lease deed (knowledge) this 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. Even normal roads are flooded. Knowledge can’t be proven directly.
In his argument, the Public Prosecutor for CBI that the accused persons had knowledge. Knowledge withdrawn from the circumstances. The land has been encroached on by all buildings, he added.
“The basement was given to the coaching institute. It was given for storage and exam hall. They had the knowledge,” 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.
The CBI said that there were 25 students present in the basement. There, could be a graver 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 Uphaar Cinema case, is not applicable in this case. There were not any illegal activities in Uphaar Cinema case, it was meant for the cinema.
Even as per the lease deed, the basement was rented out for coaching, the counsel argued. The court directed jail authorities to take Sarabjit Singh to Hospital for removing stent on August 19. He sought an interim bail.
