BMW Crash Case: Delhi Court Extends Judicial Custody of Accused Gaganpreet Kaur Till Sept 27

Singh’s wife sustained serious injuries in the collision.

Kaur was initially remanded, two days Judicial Custody by the Court.

Judicial Magistrate Ankit Garg of Patiala House Court passed the order while also issuing notice on an application moved by Kaur seeking preservation of CCTV footage from the accident site. The plea will be heard on Thursday (September 18).

The Court also heard arguments on Kaur’s bail application and adjourned the matter for orders on Saturday, i.e. September 20.

Kaur, 38, was remanded to judicial custody on September 15 after her arrest under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rash driving, endangering life, and obstruction of evidence.

The accident occurred on Sunday (September 14) afternoon on Ring Road near Delhi Cantonment Metro Station when Kaur’s BMW collided with a motorcycle carrying Singh and his wife. Singh, 52, a resident of Hari Nagar, was declared dead, while his wife suffered multiple fractures and head injuries.

The couple was returning home after paying obeisance at Bangla Sahib Gurdwara when the fatal crash occurred.

During the Bail hearing, Senior Advocates Ramesh Gupta and Vikas Pahwa appeared for Kaur. Gupta submitted that Kaur had no intention to cause harm and, in fact, had acted promptly to help the victim, Navjot Singh.

According to Gupta, Kaur stopped a van at the accident site to assist Singh, used a taxi driver’s phone to call her father-in-law after forgetting her own inside the car, and rushed Singh to a hospital within 21 minutes despite being injured herself.

“She left her injured husband and children at the spot. Her purpose was clear, to get medical treatment for the deceased and herself as quickly as possible. Everyone in such a situation tries to save life; what else could have been her intention?” Gupta argued. He added that the allegation Singh should have been taken to Safdarjung Hospital, just ten minutes away, could not be determinative. “Even the Supreme Court has held that a fair investigation is the heart of our judicial system. The police must collect real evidence,” he said, stressing the incident was “unfortunate” but not criminally motivated.

The IO, however, told the Court that CCTV footage showed Kaur walking before being admitted at the hospital, which he said was owned by her relatives. He added that the complainant, an injured witness, had asked Kaur to take Singh to the nearest hospital, but she insisted on another facility. Statements of the taxi driver and others had also been recorded, he noted.

The complainant’s counsel opposed bail, contending that Kaur, being from a hospital-owning family, knew the critical importance of timely treatment yet deliberately drove Singh nearly 20 km away. “See her conduct, she leaves him on a stretcher and gets herself admitted in the ICU. Hours later, a false medico-legal certificate was prepared. For five hours, neither she nor her family informed the police,” counsel argued, adding that her conduct pointed to mala-fide intent and potential tampering.

During the hearing, the Court directed the IO to explain why the case diary was not paginated. The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) said he had not yet been briefed by the IO and sought more time.