Coaching centre deaths: Delhi HC asks CBI to state reason behind waterlogging

New Delhi, The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the CBI to inform it the reason behind the heavy waterlogging in Old Rajinder Nagar on July 27 when three civil services aspirants died after drowning in a flooded coaching basement.
The co-owners of the basement Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh and Sarbjit Singh had moved the high court last month for bail on the ground that they are merely the landlords of the basement which was let out on rental basis to the coaching centre and, therefore, they had no role whatsoever in the unfortunate event.
“What was the reason on that day? Delhi has witnessed heavy downpours. Why so much waterlogging on that day? Was it the rain or something else,” questioned Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma while hearing the bail pleas of the jailed co-owners of the basement.
The bench reserved order on the bail pleas and asked the agency to file a status report explaining the reason for the waterlogging in the area, the amount of rainfall received on the day of the incident as well as on the aspect of installation of heavy gates at the entrance of the coaching centre to “block” any water from the road.
Three civil service aspirants Shreya Yadav, 25, of Uttar Pradesh; Tanya Soni, 25, from Telangana; and Nevin Delvin, 24, from Kerala died after the basement of the building housing Rau’s IAS Study Circle was flooded following heavy rain in central Delhi’s Old Rajinder Nagar on July 27 evening.
The case, being probed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , including section 105 , was transferred from the Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the high court.
“I am in custody. I have suffered enough. Please consider… At this stage, I am only asking for liberty. I will face the trial,” the senior lawyer appearing for the four accused, who are brothers, said.
Opposing the bail pleas, the CBI said investigation was at initial stages and no relief should be given until the independent witnesses are examined as they may be influenced.
On being queried by the bench, the CBI counsel said a charge sheet is expected to be filed in 10 days against the present accused persons.
The court told the CBI that it was investigating a “very important case” and asked it if other buildings near the Rau’s IAS Study Circle were also flooded.
The counsel for the father of the deceased victim Nevin Dalvin also made submissions in favour of rejection of the bail pleas and said the coaching centre was running in violation of building and safety norms, and the owners had the knowledge that deaths could occur on account of the non-compliance.
During the hearing, the court asked the senior counsel for the accused persons if they would pay any damages or compensation to the family of the deceased aspirants.
The senior lawyer appearing for the four accused said their father will contribute to the noble cause, as has been done by some coaching centres that have announced a monetary compensation.
The CBI counsel said according to the statement of the witnesses, 35-40 students were present in the basement at the time of the incident and water rose within seconds in a “dam failure” like manner after the gates broke down.
He also said there was 58 mm rainfall on the day of the incident.
Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for the accused persons, emphasised that the storm water drain on the road was not functional and despite allegations of misconduct, the CBI was yet to take any action against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi employees.
It was also claimed that the allegations of fraud to obtain safety clearances were not relevant to them as when they had purchased the premises, all such clearances were provided by the earlier owner.
Asserting that no knowledge or intention with respect to the deaths can be attributed, the senior lawyer said if on similar days of rain such an incident did not happen, how should the accused be expected to contemplate such a consequence when they do not even stay there.
“They were asked to leave . Some left, some did not.
“It is an unfortunate situation, no doubt about that… whom do you attribute that to? They are still contemplating action to be taken against public servants,” he submitted.
“We all have become very casual. When tragedies happen, our eyes open,” the judge lamented.
On August 23, a trial court had rejected the bail applications of the co-owners and said it was not necessary that the exact happening or precise incident must be in the knowledge of the offender to invoke the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In the application filed in the high court, one of the co-owners has said the trial court, while denying them bail, failed to consider that they had let out the basement and the third floor of the building on lease for running the coaching centre, an activity permissible under the MCD norms, and they never intended to commit such an offence nor had any knowledge of it.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.