Rajender Nagar drowning case: Court calls for status report on bail plea of co-owners of basement

New Delhi [India], August 2 : Delhi's Tis Hazari court has called for a status report from Delhi police on the pleas of the co-owners of the basement where the drowning incident took place after 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.
The matter was mentioned before the court for an urgent hearing. The court heard 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 the accused.
It is stated that the judicial magistrate dismissed the bail application and did not consider the fact that these accused persons were not named in the FIR. They went to the police station and were subjected to the custody of an investigation officer (IO). Even IO did not call them.
It is also stated that the trial court did not consider the submissions and material placed on record by the accused.
On July 31, while dismissing the bail plea, the court said that the allegations against the accused person were serious in nature. The court has been apprised that the role of other civic agencies is being investigated thoroughly.
The investigation is at a very nascent stage. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea of the accused seeking enlargement on bail was dismissed.
Delhi police had opposed the bail pleas. It was submitted that land owners abetted the offence.
Advocate Amit Chaddha had argued for the accused Tejinder, Harvinder, Parvinder and Sarabjeet. They were part owner of the building where the coaching centre was being run.
"They approached the police, they did not abscond. They could abscond, but they went beside the police. 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 courts or 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 which 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 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. 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 not you check why there is so much crowd in the basement. It was meant for warehouse purposes," APP said.
"The abetment is made against the accused persons. It is a very serious case. It is a very initial stage," APP argued.