Bail Pleas of Delhi Coaching Centre Co-Owners in Drowning Case Heard by CBI Court

NEW DELHI:
The co-owners of a coaching centre basement in Delhi ‘s old Rajinder Nagar, where three UPSC aspirants drowned, have sought bail from a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court after the investigation was transferred by the High Court. The Rouse Avenue court is scheduled to hear the bail pleas today.

Principal District and Session judge Anuj Bajaj Chandana listed the matter for a hearing on Wednesday. Accused Harvinder, Tejinder, Parvinder, and Sarabjeet have moved the bail pleas through their legal representatives, including Advocates Kaushal Jeet Kait, Daksh Gupta, Jatin Gupta, and others.

The accused have been charged under sections 105, 106(1), 115(2), 290, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following a case registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar on July 27. While their earlier bail applications were dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Court at Tis Hazari, they have now approached the competent court as per the provided liberty.

The main grounds for the bail applications include the contention that the accused were not named in the FIR and that they voluntarily approached the police, demonstrating their bona fides. They argue that the trial court did not sufficiently consider the materials presented by the defense or the registered lease deed, which should validate their stance.

The defense further contends that section 105 of the BNS Act, pertaining to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, unjustly elevates the case’s gravity. They argue that there was no intention or knowledge of committing such a crime and that their actions do not meet the provisions to justify these charges. Meanwhile, the prosecution maintains that the bail should be denied, citing the initial stage of the investigation and the seriousness of the accusations.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava opposed the bail applications, emphasizing the serious nature of the case. He argued that the basement was intended for warehouse use, not a coaching centre , and insisted that both sections 105 and 106 (death caused by negligence) could be invoked concurrently.

Advocate Amit Chaddha, representing the accused , countered that any deviation in property use was not their responsibility, as they had adhered to regulations, citing a fire safety certificate as proof of compliance. Chaddha argued that the tragedy resulted from natural causes exacerbated by the authorities’ oversight, labeling it an ‘act of God.’