Coaching centre basement co-owners’ bail plea: HC seeks CBI response

The court said the present matter “should not be an ordinary case” and landlords should think four times before renting out their properties.
| Photo Credit: file photo

The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to respond to the bail pleas of jailed co-owners of the basement of the Old Rajinder Nagar coaching centre, where three Civil Services aspirants died after drowning in July.

Three Civil Service aspirants — Shreya Yadav, 25, of Uttar Pradesh, Tanya Soni, 25, from Telangana, and Nevin Delvin, 24, from Kerala — died after the basement of Rau’s IAS Study Circle got flooded with rainwater on July 27 evening.

The Delhi police had booked the co-owners of the basement — Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh, and Sarbjit Singh — under various sections of the BNS, including Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), following the deaths. The case was subsequently transferred to the CBI.

The counsel appearing for the accused acknowledged that the incident was indeed “sad” but asserted that his clients had merely leased the basement and another floor to the coaching centre and, therefore, could not be held liable for the deaths.

The counsel added that while leasing out the basement to Rau’s IAS Study Circle, the four brothers could not have thought that somebody would die on the premises. The four accused have been in custody for almost six weeks.

The court said the present matter “should not be an ordinary case” and landlords should think four times before renting out their properties.

“Why did such a thing happen? You have to think about that also. You tell me what steps should be taken so that it is not repeated in future. This should not be an ordinary case,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.

The court asked the CBI counsel to “give concrete evidence” with respect to the accountability of the basement co-owners and wanted to know if action had been taken against the officials concerned.

The CBI counsel said the agency was probing the authorities and the issue of waterlogging in the area, which an individual had flagged earlier while voicing apprehension that such a tragedy could happen there.

“Was MCD sleeping? Why did they not seal it? What was the police doing?” the court said.

The counsel for the accused claimed the CBI has “not touched a single Deputy Commissioner of the MCD” in the case.

The court listed the case for further hearing on September 11.