While hearing the bail pleas of four co-owners of the Old Rajender Nagar basement, the Rouse Avenue court questioned the CBI, “Was the show cause notice issued to the accused persons along with the coaching centre in August 2023.”
The accused claimed that Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna directed the CBI on Monday to submit a typewritten copy of the show cause notice, as the original was not clear. The court also inquired whether the show cause notice had been issued and served to the accused co-owners. The case will continue tomorrow with further hearings. The court is reviewing the bail pleas of co-owners Harvinder, Parvinder, Tejinder, and Sarabjeet, who have been arrested in connection with the coaching centre death case.
During the hearing, the Court inquired of the counsel for the accused, “Did you share the occupancy/completion certificate with the tenant?”
Advocate Amit Chaddha argued that the property in question is commercial and was designated for use as a coaching institute, not as a library. He also pointed out that a fire safety certificate for the building was issued for three years on July 9, 2024. The court inquired about the circumstances of the incident. It was explained that water had flooded the basement after the gate was damaged by a wave created by an SUV driver.
The court asked, “Was the gate so weak that it crashed due to wave of water? What action has been taken against the person who constructed the gate?”
The counsel for the accused stated that the Delhi police had determined that Section 105 BNS did not apply to SUV driver Manuj Kathuria. Although he was previously considered the main suspect, he was granted bail. Advocate Amit Chaddha further argued that the investigation agency was acting beyond its authority by arresting innocent individuals. He also mentioned a complaint filed by a student on June 26.
The court asked, “If there was a complaint on June 26 regarding the basement, what action did MCD take ?”
Amit Chaddha also noted that during a hearing in the High Court, the MCD commissioner had acknowledged that the drain in front of RAU’s study centre was nonfunctional.
Chaddha argued that the Deputy Commissioner had issued a show cause notice to the lessee.
“Deputy commissioner had the knowledge that something is wrong. And still sitting on it. He was aware. Still, he allowed this to happen. This is an organised crime,” Chaddha argued.
“Even the commissioner admitted that drains were dysfunctional. Officers were cognisant. Investigation is also cognisant of this fact, he added. Should I start cleaning the drain myself?” he raised the question.
The CBI counsel stated that a notice had also been served to the owners. “Was the notice served upon the owner?” the court asked.
“It was issued on August 4, 2023. It shows the negligence of the civic agency. You have to provide its typewritten copy. This notice is really important,” the court said.
Chaddha said “Neither June 6 nor August 4, I am aware of it. It is at its best, a case of negligence defined under section 106 BNS.”
He also referenced the judgments from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case to the Uphar Cinema fire case.
The CBI stated that the sliding gate serves the entire building, making the owner responsible for it. They also noted that the operation of the library from the basement was in violation of the MCD master plan, as outlined in the FIR. The sliding gate collapsed, which is mainly being held responsible for the waterlogging in the basement of the coaching centre.
“They are getting Rs 4 lakh per month but they are not concerned with the three deaths,” CBI said.
The court remarked that the civic agency was aware of the situation and questioned what actions had been taken. It was noted that the individuals are not the sole accused. The CBI responded that to address this question, the case has been handed over to them, and argued that neither morally nor legally are the accused entitled to bail.
During the hearing, a counsel representing the deceased also came up. “Is there no responsibility on the part of the owner? Were they not aware of the situation? A total of 10 minutes of rainfall can cause waterlogging”, it submitted.
The court inquired if there was any statement regarding this matter. The counsel further asked, “Was there any way out if the basement got waterlogged? Their responsibility was to provide a way out if the basement so big that hundred students were sitting.”
“Why did they not shut the library? They regularly asked for the rent? Why did they not cancel the lease deed,” the counsel for the victim asked.
A month earlier, a student had filed a complaint, indicating awareness of the issue. However, CBI claimed that they were unaware of it at that time. CBI noted that a few students might have been saved. The counsel mentioned that three lives had been lost, and Chaddha described it as a tragic event. He emphasised that decisions should be based on legal principles rather than emotions, adding that failure to take action would implicate others in the crime.
