Delhi’s Tis Hazari court has dismissed the bail pleas of Manuj Kathuria, Tejinder, Harvinder, Parvinder, and Sarabjeet, who were arrested in connection with the drowning incident at a coaching center in Old Rajender Nagar.
Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Vinod Kumar dismissed the bail applications after considering the submissions from the counsels for the accused and the Delhi police.
While dismissing the bail application of accused Manuj Kathuria, the judge observed, “Perusal of CCTV footage of the alleged incident shows that the driver can be seen driving the vehicle on an already heavily waterlogged road at a speed causing large displacement of water, resulting in the gate of the alleged premises giving way. Water entered the basement, leading to the loss of three innocent lives.”
The judge further noted, “Perusal of CCTV footage prima facie shows that he was warned of the danger ahead by a passerby, but he did not heed the warning.”
Regarding the other accused, the court noted that the allegations against them pertain to their joint ownership of the basement. The lease deed dated June 5, 2022, executed between the accused and the coaching center, indicated that the premises were being used for commercial purposes, contrary to the completion cum occupancy certificate issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, thus violating the law.
“The unfortunate tragedy occurred because the premises were used for commercial purposes, resulting in the loss of three innocent lives,” the judge observed.
The court emphasised the seriousness of the allegations against the accused and noted that the role of other civic agencies is still under thorough investigation. Given the early stage of the investigation, the court dismissed the bail pleas.
On Tuesday, the court reserved the order on the bail pleas of the landowners’ brothers and the driver.
Delhi police opposed the bail pleas, arguing that the landowners abetted the offence while the car driver aggravated the incident, contributing to the students’ deaths.
It is alleged that the driver was speeding, causing a high wave that resulted in the crashing of three iron gates.
Advocate Rakesh Malhotra argued that the incident occurred at an institute with a basement library and a biometric door, designated for storage but used as a library.
Malhotra also argued that the MCD and other agencies are responsible for maintaining civic amenities. A complaint had been filed with the MCD a week before the incident, indicating ongoing issues.
He contended, “There was no overspeeding by the driver. What do you expect, should I ask everyone whether I can pass my vehicle? If so, then I am guilty of negligent and rash driving.”
Malhotra further argued that the accused had no knowledge that their actions could cause the incident, given the crowded nature of Rajender Nagar and the role of civic agencies.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava, opposing the bail, presented a picture of the vehicle and noted the accused’s fondness for off-road vehicles. He argued that the driver should have slowed down in the waterlogged area.
Shrivastava emphasised the early stage of the investigation and the accused’s potential to influence witnesses.
In rebuttal, the defence counsel argued that the vehicle in question was a passenger car, not designed for off-road conditions, and the actual culprits were the civic agencies and the institute.
Advocate Amit Chaddha, representing the other accused, argued that they approached the police voluntarily, demonstrating their bona fide intentions. He contended that the incident was due to an act of God, which could have been avoided by the authorities.
Delhi police invoked sections 106 (death caused by negligence) and 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) to bypass Supreme Court judgements in similar cases, according to the defence.
Chaddha also presented a fire safety certificate for the premises, arguing that it was the authorities’ responsibility to ensure compliance with safety standards.
APP Atul Shrivastava countered by highlighting the serious nature of the charges and the initial stage of the investigation, arguing that the accused were aware of the coaching centre’s operations and failed to take necessary precautions.
The court, taking into account all submissions, dismissed the bail applications.
