New Delhi: The 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.
3 IAS aspirants drowned
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.
CBI counsel opposed the bail
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.
Accused's counsel defended
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.
Cause of death
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?"
Defense counsel arguements
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. (with Agency inputs)
