The Delhi High Court is set to deliver its verdict on the bail pleas of the co-owners of a coaching centre in Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, where a tragic incident took place in July. The case involves the deaths of three civil services aspirants—Shreya Yadav from Uttar Pradesh, Tanya Soni from Telangana, and Nevin Delvin from Kerala—who drowned when the basement of the coaching centre was flooded during heavy rainfall.
This tragic event has drawn widespread attention due to its nature and the involvement of high-profile government bodies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The co-owners, Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh, and Sarbjit Singh, are currently in jail. Their bail pleas rest on the argument that they were merely landlords of the property and had rented out the basement to Rau's IAS Study Circle, a well-known coaching institute.
They maintain that they had no direct involvement in the circumstances leading to the fatal incident. The defence has repeatedly emphasised that the owners neither operated the coaching centre nor managed its daily activities, asserting their innocence in the tragedy.
The Delhi High Court, under Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, will announce the verdict on their bail at 4 pm on Friday. This follows the reservation of the order on Thursday after hearing arguments from both the defence and the prosecution.
The CBI, which has taken over the investigation from the Delhi Police, strongly opposes the granting of bail to the accused. They argue that the investigation is still in its early stages, and releasing the co-owners on bail could hamper the ongoing investigation.
The prosecution stressed that it is crucial to examine independent witnesses before any relief is given to the accused. The CBI has also pointed out that the charges are serious and include section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
This section applies in cases where the accused may not have intended to kill but whose actions led to a fatal outcome, making it a significant legal point in this case.
The incident occurred on July 27 when Delhi experienced heavy rainfall, causing severe waterlogging in several areas. The basement of Rau’s IAS Study Circle, where the three aspirants were present, flooded quickly. The students, unable to escape the rising water, tragically drowned.
The deaths shocked the community, especially in Old Rajinder Nagar, an area known for its dense population of civil services aspirants attending coaching institutes.
Following the tragic incident, the high court had transferred the investigation to the CBI for a more detailed and impartial inquiry. The case has since been closely watched, with many calling for accountability and stricter safety regulations in the densely populated coaching hub.
The CBI’s involvement signals the gravity of the situation, and the court’s decision on the bail pleas will be pivotal in determining the next steps in the legal proceedings.
The co-owners, through their counsel, have maintained that they had adhered to all rental agreements and that the coaching centre was responsible for ensuring safety measures within the premises.
They argue that the tragedy was a result of unforeseen natural circumstances, for which they cannot be held liable. However, the prosecution has raised concerns about whether adequate safety precautions were in place and whether the landlords had fulfilled their duty of care in maintaining the property.
As the court prepares to announce its decision, the families of the victims and the local community remain deeply affected by the tragedy. The case has sparked a broader conversation about safety regulations for coaching centres in Delhi, particularly in areas where students live and study in large numbers.
The court’s ruling on the bail pleas will not only impact the future of the four accused landlords but may also set a precedent for how cases involving rented properties and tenant safety are handled in the future.
Should the court decide to grant bail, it could raise questions about the accountability of property owners in similar cases. On the other hand, a denial of bail could underscore the importance of holding landlords and property managers responsible for ensuring the safety of those using their premises.
Follow us
