Coaching institute death case: Court calls for status report on bail plea of co-owners of basement

New Delhi [India], August 1 : Delhi's Tis Hazari court has called for a status report from Delhi police on the pleas of co-owners of the basement where the drowning incident occurred. Their bail pleas were dismissed on Wednesday.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Rakesh Kumar-IV called for a status report from Delhi police. The court will hear the matter on August 3.
Matter was mentioned before the court for urgent hearing. The court hears the matter and granted time to Delhi police to file a reply.
Accused co-owners Tejinder Singh, Harvinder Singh, Parvinder Singh and Sarabjeet Singh have filed bail pleas through advocates Kaushal Jeet Kait and Daksh Gupta. Advocate Amit Chaddha argued for accused.
It is stated that Judicial Magistrate dismissed the bail application and did not consider the fact that these accused persons were not named in the FIR. They themselves went to the police station and subjected to the custody of investigation officer (IO). Even, IO did not call them.
It is also stated that trial court did not consider the submissions and material placed record by the accused persons.
On July 31, while dismissing bail plea the court had said that the allegations against the accused person are serious in nature. The court has been apprised that the role of other civic agencies are being investigated thoroughly. The investigation is at a very nascent stage. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case plea of accused seeking enlargement on bail dismissed.
Delhi police had opposed the bail pleas. It was submitted that landowners abetted the offence.
Advocate Amit Chaddha had argued for accused Tejinder, Harvinder, Parvinder and Sarabjeet. They part owner of the building where the coaching centre was being run.
The themselves approach the police, they did not abscond. They could abscond, but they went beside the police. It shows their bona fide, 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.
Library is not as big as in Courts or in college. It was place for study between the classes, Chaddha submitted.
He further submitted that There was not an intention and knowledge. This incident caused due to desilting and rain. It was an act of God which could be avoided by the authorities.
"It is an organised crime. You know what is happening in your area and keep your eyes close," Chaddha argued.
Delhi police have invoked sections 106 (death caused by negligence) and Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
These sections have been invoked to bypass the judgement of Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Antil, the counsel argued.
The counsel for 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 knowledge in the authorities that a coaching centre was running there. Lessee was responsible for 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 other 16 basements which have been closed. The court has to satisfy the juris prudence at this stage that 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 persons. Neelam Vohra had reconstructed this building.
The Completion certificate shows that the basement was for warehouse purpose.
No contract can override the jurisdiction of the court. Sections 105 and 106 can be invoked together at the same time
They also covered under 45 (Abetment proceedings). Why did not you check why there is so much crowd in the basement. It was meant for warehouse purpose. The abetment is made out against the accused persons. It is very serious case. It is very initial stage, APP argued.