In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to four co-owners of the basement in Old Rajinder Nagar, where three students tragically lost their lives during a flooding incident in July 2024. The premises, used as a library for Rau’s IAS coaching institute, witnessed a calamity when heavy rainwater inundated the basement, trapping several stude
Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, granted bail to Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh Ajmani, Sarbjit Singh, and Harvinder Singh. As part of the bail conditions, the Court mandated the accused to voluntarily deposit ₹5 lakh with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA). This amount is intended to support the welfare of the victims' families.
The court noted ,
“The Applicants shall, within two weeks, deposit ₹5 lakhs with DSLSA. The member secretary, DSLSA, shall ensure disbursal of the amount to the victims’ families after due consideration.”
This directive aligns with the Supreme Court's suggestion that such contributions, though voluntary, could be a meaningful step towards compensating for the loss endured b
The unfortunate incident unfolded on July 27, 2024, when heavy rains caused the collapse of the building's sliding gates, leading to flooding in the basement. While many students managed to escape, three tragically drowned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the basement had been rented out for commercial purposes—a library—despite such use being unauthorized as per the building’s occupancy certificate.
The case, initially investigated by Delhi Police, was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in August 2024. The CBI charged the accused under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 106.
The court carefully evaluated the allegations against the accused. It was argued that the co-owners had knowingly rented the basement for a commercial purpose, violating the terms specified in the occupancy certificate. However, the Court emphasized that the determination of guilt regarding culpable homicide would rest with the trial court, based on evidence.
Justice Narula highlighted,
“The prosecution has primarily relied on the lease deed clause, which specifies the commercial use of the property. However, whether this constitutes ‘knowledge’ under Section 105 of the BNS remains to be decided.”
Additionally, the Court found no evidence indicating a corruption angle against the accused, as stated in the status report by the CBI.
The accused were earlier granted interim bail by the High Court in September 2024, conditional upon depositing ₹5 crore with the Red Cross Society. However, this condition was later stayed by the Supreme Court. While setting aside the requirement for such a substantial deposit, the apex court allowed the accused to voluntarily contribute to a corpus for the victims’ welfare, under the aegis of DSLSA.
The co-owners were represented by Senior Advocates Mr. Mohit Mathur and Mr. Amit Chadha, among others, while the victims’ families were represented by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor, and other counsel.
Granting regular bail to the accused, the High Court emphasized that the primary objective of bail is not punitive but to ensure the accused’s presence during trial. The Court also reiterated that its observations were limited to the bail application and should not influence the merits of the ongoing trial.
This case serves as a reminder of the critical need for regulatory compliance in commercial properties and highlights the judiciary's balanced approach to justice—securing both individual liberty and accountability.
