UPSC aspirants' death case: "Heavy rain main reason for incident, act of God," say accused in court

New Delhi [India], August 9 : The accused persons in the death of UPSC aspirants in Old Rajinder Nagar argued in court that heavy rain was the reason for the unfortunate incident and it was an "act of God" while Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court was hearing their bail plea on Friday.
During the hearing, the accused also blamed the civic agency for the "dysfunctional" sewer in the area. The Rouse Avenue Court was hearing the bail pleas of four accused persons.
Principal District and Session Judge Anuj Bajaj Chandna heard the arguments by the Defence counsel. The court has listed the matter for hearing further arguments on Monday.
Advocate Amit Chaddha alongwith with Advocates Kaushal Jeet Jait, and Daksh Gupta appeared for the accused persons Harvinder, Parvinder, Tejinder and Sarabjeet.
Advocate Chaddha submitted that the main reason behind the incident was heavy rain which is an act of God. Besides this, the civic agency entrusted with the maintenance of the sewer is also responsible as the sewer was dysfunctional in the area, the petitioners submitted.
"It could have been avoided had the civic agencies performed their onerous duties which they have miserably failed," the counsel argued. It was also submitted that the accused are not named in the FIR "When you know that the case is there they could have roped in the FIR."
After a direction from the Delhi High Court on August 2, the CBI registered an FIR on August 6. The CBI also filed a reply to the bail pleas. The defence counsel submitted that there was no drainage system in the basement. He also cited the example that during the rains a lot of advocates who had offices in the basement faced problems.
The counsel for the accused submitted that the property is leased out for 9 years. The lease was of January 2022, and completion of the building is in August 2021. The court asked the counsel to show the lease deed.
The counsel argued that the basement was not a library but a waiting area where students could go and sit and conduct self-study. It was also argued that the property was leased out for coaching purposes which could have various purposes related to coaching. He also referred to the lease agreement.
"I (Accused) have never given the property with the knowledge or intention that someday it will rain and there will be loss of life. It is not the case of the investigation agency that a class was being run from that basement," counsel argued. Defence counsel also referred to the Fire department report.
"An authorised valid inspection took place by the fire department. When inspected, it was found by them that the basement was being used for storage purposes. The building was safe and fit to run an educational centre. This was issued by the lessee. This document establishes that the basement was for storage purposes only," the court noted.
There are six accused in the case who are in custody including Abhishek Gupta and DP Singh. Another accused SUV driver Manuj Kathuria was granted bail.
The Court on August 7, issued notice to the CBI on bail pleas. At the time it was not clear whether CBI had registered a case or not.
The accused have been booked under sections 105, 106(1), 115(2), 290, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in an FIR registered at Police station Rajinder Nagar on July 27. The accused were arrested on July 28.
Earlier, their applications were dismissed by the Metropolitan magistrate on July 31, 2024.
Accused persons have sought bail because the Metropolitan Magistrate did not consider the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and the applicant alongwith other co-owners, as good Samaritans themselves went to the police station and subjected to the custody of the Investigating Officer, although the IO had not even called them, which clearly shows the bonafide of the applicants.
It also stated that the trial court did not consider the submissions and material placed on record by the accused persons and that the magistrate court did not deal with the registered lease deed and its terms, which in the eyes of law has a judicial sanctity and has a pivotal bearing on the status and locus of the co-owners.
It is also stated that the court failed to consider and did not appreciate the fact that the applicant had merely given the basement and third floor on lease for running the coaching
centre, which is an activity permissible by the norms of MCD.
Accused persons further stated that while dismissing the bail applications the court did not consider the fact that invocation of provision as stipulated under section 105 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the BNS Act does not in any manner attract in the given facts of the case against the applicant and other co-owners, as they never "intended" nor had any "knowledge" to commit such a crime as alleged by the prosecution and also the fact that prosecution could not establish and link the applicants with any act much less the intention and knowledge to commit such a crime and therefore the applicability of section 105 BNS by the prosecution is a sham and feeble attempt to increase the gravity of the case and also to circumvent the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Satinder Antil judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
On July 31, while dismissing bail plea the court had said that the allegations against the accused person are serious. The court has been apprised that the role of other civic agencies is being investigated thoroughly. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case plea of the accused seeking enlargement on bail was dismissed.
Delhi police have invoked sections 106 (death caused by negligence) and Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava counsel for Delhi police had opposed the bail applications.
They submitted that the 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 purposes," the counsel said in court.