Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, extended bail of owners of Rau’s IAS Study Circle, who were granted interim bail on 13th September 2024 and was subsequently extended multiple times.

Per the investigation, the Applicants, as joint owners of the basement, had leased it to Abhishek Kumar Gupta on 5th January 2022. This arrangement contravened the approved usage of the basement, which was limited to non-commercial purposes, such as parking and household storage. Despite this restriction, the Applicants knowingly permitted its commercial use as a coaching institute, as explicitly stated in the lease agreement.

The investigation further revealed that the building had also been operating without a Fire Safety Certificate until 9th July 2024. Prior warnings, including a show-cause notice under the Master Plan Delhi-2021, had been issued but were inadequately addressed. Allegations of corruption and quid pro quo regarding the issuance of permits and approvals remained under investigation.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula opined, “The lease deed makes it clear that it was the responsibility of the Lessee to obtain necessary permissions from the local authorities for conducting their business… In such situation, the court, on a prima facie view, finds merit in the contention that the role of the Applicants was limited to being owners of property where the incident occurred”. 

Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Amit Chadha, representing the Applicants, argued that their clients were implicated solely due to their ownership of the property and had no intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. It was emphasized that compliance with local regulations was the lessee's responsibility, as outlined in the lease deed, and that the Applicants posed no risk of absconding or influencing witnesses.

Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh Kumar, representing the State, contended that the Applicants’ actions contributed to the tragedy. SPP Kumar alleged that the unlawful leasing of the property for commercial purposes was a direct factor in the incident and expressed concerns that granting bail might lead to witness tampering.

After carefully reviewing the case, the court highlighted that bail is not intended as punishment but as a mechanism to secure the accused’s presence at trial. “The object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial”, the court highlighted. 

The court noted that the investigation had concluded, and the chargesheet had been filed.  The court found no prima facie evidence to suggest that the Applicants possessed the requisite knowledge to be held liable under Sections 105 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act. Responsibility for regulatory compliance was deemed to rest with the lessee, as stipulated in the lease agreement.

“However, prima facie, this court is unable to find how such a standard clause can attribute ‘knowledge’, under section 105 of the BNS, onto the Applicants”, the court emphasized.

Considering these findings, the court granted regular bail to the Applicants, subject to the terms and conditions of their interim bail. It also directed them to voluntarily contribute ₹5 lakhs to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for the welfare of the deceased students’ families. 

Background: 

Students had approached the High Court, seeking the establishment of a high-level committee to investigate the deaths of these civil aspirants.

During the hearing, the bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the police regarding the reasons for arresting a passerby driver. The bench expressed dismay over the government's actions, noting that the government was shifting blame for such incidents without any particular authority taking accountability. 

However, in an unusual turn of events, the Tis Hazari Court denied bail to the SUV driver on the same day. Judicial Magistrate Vinod Kumar noted that the allegations against the SUV driver were serious, observing that CCTV footage showed him driving the vehicle on an already waterlogged road at high speed, causing a large displacement of water. The court further observed that the gate of the premises gave way, allowing water to enter the basement, resulting in the loss of three innocent lives.

However, the driver was soon discharged after the police decided to drop the harsher charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Later, the high court directed the CBI to investigate the deaths of three civil aspirants who were drowned after the casement of a coaching center was flooded. 

The high court, thereafter, granted interim bail to the owners of the basement involved in the tragic flooding incident. The court directed the basement owners to pay 5 crores to the Red Cross Society. The amount is to be ‘used for the student welfare and for the purpose of streamlining the functioning of coaching centers in Delhi’. 

For Petitioners: Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Amit Chadha with Advocates Daksh Gupta, Gaurav Dua, Kaushal Jeet Kait, Jatin Yadav, Harsh Gautam, Vignesh, Sarthak Sethi and Atin Chadha
For Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh Kumar with Advocates Mohd.
Changez Ali Khan, Abhijit Anand, Tisha Kaushik, Niyoti Dayma and Prachi Mittal
Case Title: Parvinder Singh v CBI (BAIL APPLN. 3089/2024)