New Delhi [India], August 13 (ANI): During the hearing of bail pleas of 4 co-owners of the Old Rajender Nagar basement, the Rouse Avenue court asked the CBI, “Was the show cause notice issued to the accused persons along with the coaching centre in August 2023.”
Accused persons claimed that Principal District and Session judge Anju Bajaj Chandna on Monday asked the CBI to place on record the type copy of show cause notice as it was not tangible. The court also asked whether the show cause was issued and served upon the accused co-owners. The matter has been listed tomorrow for further hearing.
The court is dealing with the bail plea moved by co-owners Harvinder, Parvinder, Tejinder and Sarabjeet. They have been arrested in coaching centre death case.
During the hearing, the Court asked the counsel for accused persons, “did you share the occupancy/completion certificate with Tenant?”
Advocate Amit Chaddha submitted that it is commercial property. It was given for commercial purpose/ coaching institute. It was not given for use as a library.
He also referred to the fire safety certificate issued to building. It was issued for a three years on July 9, 2024. The court asked how the incident happened? It was submitted that water entered into the basement as the gate crashed due to a wave caused by the SUV driver.
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 submitted that Delhi police had said that 105 BNS was not made out against SUV driver Manuj Kathuria. Earlier, he was alleged to be the main accused but was given bail.
Amit Chaddha further submitted that you (Investigation agency) are taking the law into your own hands and arresting innocent people. He also referred to a complaint moved by a student on June 26.
The court asked, “If there was a complaint on June 26 regarding the basement. What action MCD took?”
Amit Chaddha also referred to the hearing took place in the High Court and submitted that MCD Commissioner had admitted before the High Court that the drain in front of RAU’s study centre was dysfunctional.
Deputy Commissioner issued show cause notice to lessee, Advocate Chaddha argued.
“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 a organised crime,” Advocate Amit Chaddha argued.
Even the commissioner admitted that drains were dysfunctional. Officers were cognizant. Investigation is also Cognizant of this fact, he added. Should I start cleaning the drain myself, he raised question.
At this point, counsel for CBI submitted that a notice was served upon the owners also. “Was the notice served upon the owner,” the court asked.
“It was issued on August 4 2023, it came in July 2024. It shows the negligence of the civic agency, the court said. Give its type copy. This notice is really important,” the court said.
Advocate Chaddha submitted that neither about June 6 nor August 4, I am aware of it. It at best, it is a case of negligence defined under section 106 BNS.
He also mentioned the judgement in the Bhopal Gas case up to the Uphar cinema fire case.
“Is it their case that I was waiting for July 27 for heavy rain and opened the door and caused culpable homicide not amounting to murder,” he added.
It was submitted that there was sliding gate. This incident happened due to sudden fall of sliding gate. Court asked, “Who made the sliding gate. Who made such a weak gate?”
CBI submitted that gate is for entire building, owner is responsible for that. CBI also submitted that it was against the MCD master plan. As per FIR Library was running from the basement.
“They are getting 4 lakh per month but they are not concerned with the three deaths,” CBI said. Court said that everything was in the knowledge of civic agency and questioned that what action was taken.
They are not exclusively accused. CBI submitted that for answer this question, this case has been transferred to the CBI. Neither morally nor legally they are entitled to bail.
During the hearing, a counsel for the deceased also appeared. Is there no responsibility on the part of owner. Were they not aware of the situation, he asked. It gets waterlogged in rain for 10 minutes, he submitted.
Court asked if there was any statement to this effect. The counsel further asked “was there any way out if the basement is waterlogged? Their responsibility was to give a way if the basement so big that hundred students were sitting.”
“Why did they not stop the library? They regularly taking the rent? Why did they not cancelled the lease deed,” the counsel for victim asked.
One month prior a student was aware and filed a complaint. But they were not aware, CBI said. Few students could have been rescued.
The counsel submitted that three lives had been lost. Advocate Chaddha said it was an unfortunate incident. But we can’t go with the emotions. We have to go by law today.
If you are not taking action, then you are also part of the crime, Chaddha added. (ANI)
