NEW DELHI: A city court on Friday denied bail to four co-owners of the Old Rajinder Nagar coaching centre basement where three civil services aspirants died by drowning last month, while also highlighting the complicity of the municipal authorities in the incident. The court observed that the owners were not solely responsible for the tragedy; the inaction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) played a significant role in the disaster.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna rejected the bail applications of Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh, and Sarbjit Singh, citing the ongoing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the tragedy, which is still in early stages. The court noted that the exact role of each accused in the incident needed to be thoroughly probed, particularly in relation to the violations of building bye-laws and encroachments on drains.
The court emphasised that a local resident, Kishore Singh Kushwaha, had lodged a complaint against Rau’s IAS Study Circle a month before the tragedy, warning of the possibility of a major accident due to the illegal use of the basement. Despite multiple reminders, authorities failed to take timely action, which could have prevented the loss of lives.
The court also highlighted the failure of MCD officials to act on the complaint, which allowed illegal activities in the basement to continue unchecked. This negligence, combined with failure of the stormwater drainage system due to encroachments created the conditions for the fatal accident.
While the court acknowledged that the malfunctioning drainage contributed to the disaster, it stressed that this did not absolve the basement owners of their responsibility. The owners were aware of the risks associated with using the basement for large student gatherings, making them liable for the consequences.
In its detailed order, the court made it clear that the owners’ awareness of the potential dangers, coupled with their decision to permit the illegal use of the basement, constituted sufficient grounds for the charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The court dismissed the argument that the owners lacked knowledge of the specific incident, stating that being aware of the general risk was enough to establish culpability.
The court expressed hope that the CBI would conduct a thorough probe and hold all responsible parties accountable.