|
Delhi's Tis Hazari Court on Tuesday reserved the order on the bail of the landowner brothers and driver in connection with the coaching centre tragedy in Old Rajinder Nagar, which claimed the lives of three students.
The Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas. It was submitted that landowners abetted the offence. The car driver aggravated the incident and contributed to the deaths of the students. Judicial Magistrate First Class Vinod Kumar reserved an order on the bail pleas of land owners Tejinder, Parvinder, Harvinder, Sarabjit and driver Manuj Kathuria for tomorrow at 4 PM. It is alleged that the driver was driving the car at high speed. The wave was so high that three iron gate crashed. Advocate Rakesh Malhotra submitted that where the incident happened, there was an institute. It has a library in the basement and a biometric door. That place was for the store, but a library was there. It was also submitted that MCD and other agencies are supposed to maintain the civic amenities. One week earlier, one complaint was filed before the MCD. The incident involving 27 is not isolated. An illegal library was being run, the counsel submitted. There was no overspeeding by the driver. What do you expect? Should I go to everyone and ask whether I can pass my vehicle? If it is, then I am an offender for negligent and rash driving. He added that I had been booked under Section 105 of the BNSS. I have not been booked for negligent and rash driving. Despite, the fact that the accused was driving at High speed. Then How can I be booked under an offence under 105 (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder) BNSS, Advocate Malhotra argued. Counsel for the accused also urged the court to direct the IO to preserve the CCTV footage before and after 30 minutes of the incident It was also submitted that there is no reason to believe that the accused had knowledge that it may have caused the incident. Rajeneder Nagar area Has become famous in recent years. There are crowded roads; it is not possible to drive at high speed. The police did not take action against waterlogging. The actual culprit should be arrested. The actual culprit is the institute and officer of civic amenities, counsel submitted It was also submitted that Manuj Kathuria has a medical history. This court has the power to grant bail to a sick person. There can be an infection if he remains in custody. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava appeared for Delhi police. He opposed the bail application. He showed a picture of the vehicle the accused was driving. As per social media accounts, the accused is fond of off-road vehicles. He was driving the Gurkha, having an upward silencer-like tractor, APP Shrivastav submitted. He submitted that Whenever there is water logging, we usually slow down. He did not take that much care. " You are a person living in the same locality, having a knowledge that coaching centres are there. He aggravated the result," APP argued. He also requested that the court see what is stage of the investigation. We have just arrested the person, it is at a very nascent stage. It is not the stage to assess whether an offence is made out or not. This is a case at very nascent. The entire world looking at you and me, APP submitted before the court. He contributed to the incidents. He aggravated the incident. He contributed to the death of three students. He is local, he may influence the witnesses, APP Atul Srivastava argued. In the rebuttal argument, the counsel for the accused submitted that the tractor has 5 feet of tyres, works in muddy soils, and therefore has a silencer upward. On the other hand, it is a passenger car with a 2.5-foot car. Silencer has nothing to do with power. He played a video before the court. On July 9, there was water. The police are arresting people who are not responsible, they are not arresting people who are responsible. The complaint was filed with MCD. Not three, all the students are victims, counsel argued. On the other hand, a YouTube video of the accused, Manuj Kathuria, was played, by the APP. He is 'Mastikhor'. The video showed that he was driving on hills. Sir, this man knows, how to drive where. Advocate Amit Chaddha argued for the accused, Tejinder, Harvinder, Parvinder and Sarabjeet. They were part owners of the building where the coaching centre was being run. They approached the police, but they did not abscond. They could abscond. It shows their bona fide, as Advocate Chadha submitted. The entire case is that the place was leased out for some purposes, but it was used for another purpose. It is a violation under MCD rules, he added. The library is not as big as in the courts or in college. It was a place for study between the classes, Chaddha submitted. He further submitted that there was no intention or knowledge. This incident occurred due to desilting and rain. It was an act of God that could be avoided by the authorities. " It is an organised crime. You know what is happening in your area and keep your eyes closed," Chaddha argued. Delhi police have invoked sections 106 (death caused by negligence) and 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). These sections have been invoked to bypass the judgement of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Antil, the counsel argued. The counsel for the accused also produced a fire safety certificate, declaring it fit for occupancy and coaching. Other agencies also could do this. It was not my responsibility, he added. It was known to the authorities that a coaching centre was running there. The lessee was responsible for the safety and security of the occupant. Lesser shall not be responsible, Chaddha argued. He also submitted that this happened in this basement and not in the other 16 basements, which have been closed. The court has to satisfy the jurisprudence at this stage whether 105 is made out or not. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava opposed the bail application. He submitted This very property was in the name of Neelam Vohra. Her husband sold this property to the accused. Neelam Vohra had reconstructed this building.The Completion certificate shows that the basement was for warehouse purposes. No contract can override the jurisdiction of the court. Sections 105 and 106 can be invoked together at the same time They are also covered under Section 45 (Abetment Proceedings). Why did you not check why there is so much crowd in the basement? It was meant for warehouse purposes. The abetment is made out against the accused persons. It is a very serious case. It is a very initial stage, APP argued. (ANI)
|
