Delhi High Court: In the bail applications filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in an offence registered under Sections 105, 106(1), 115(2), 290, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), Sanjeev Narula, J., noted that the prosecution had primarily relied on clause (d) of the lease deed dated 05-1-2024, by which knowledge of the lessor and lessee was established, as it was clearly mentioned that the lessee intended to use the scheduled property for the commercial purpose/for coaching institutes only. However, the Court stated that prima facie, it was unable to find how such a standard clause could attribute ‘knowledge’, under section 105 of the BNS, onto the accused persons. Thus, the Court found the present case fit for granting bail. Accordingly, the order dated 13-09-2024, granting interim bail to the accused persons, was now confirmed as regular bail on the same terms and conditions.
Background
On 06-08-2024, the present case was registered and this Court, while transferring the investigation of the case from Delhi Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) directed to probe the incident of flooding in the basement of a coaching centre, in Old Rajinder Nagar, wherein three students lost their lives and also to probe the potential involvement of corruption or negligence/inaction by the public servants or by any other persons punishable Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under other applicable laws and offences.
The investigation revealed that the coaching institute by the name of ‘RAU’s IAS Study Circle’, which had basement, stilt/parking, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. All the floors including basement were used by the said coaching centre. Specifically, the basement was being used for the purpose of Library/ Exam Hall, where students used to sit throughout the day for studying as well as for taking test conducted by the coaching institute.
The investigation revealed that on 27-07-2024 at about 6:30 pm, several students were studying in the library located in the basement of said Coaching Institute and it was raining in the locality. The rainwater quickly flooded the ground floor after the collapse of the main building’s sliding gates, which then caused water to enter the basement, resulting in flooding. While most of the students managed to escape, three students died.
The investigation revealed that the four joint owners of the basement floor of the subject property rented out the basement in contravention of the approved usage of the basement i.e., for the purpose of staircase, lift, parking use and household storage, car lift etc as mentioned in the completion cum occupancy certificate. The building was being used for running a coaching centre without a Fire Safety Certificate until 09-07-2024. Subsequently, on an application, a fire safety certificate dated 09-07-2024 was issued by the Delhi Fire service, which was clearly not proper.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that while adjudicating a bail application, the Court must consider various factors, including the nature and gravity of the crime, the role attributed to the applicant, the possibility of the applicant absconding, and their past antecedents. These factors were critical to ensuring that the balance between, the liberty of the individual and the needs of the investigation, was maintained.
The Court stated that it was well established through catena of judgments that the object of granting bail was neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail was to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial. In the present case, the investigation was concluded and the charge-sheet stood filed. The Court stated that while the nature of offence alleged were grave in nature, involving section 105 of the BNS, but the role attributed to the accused persons must also be taken note of. The allegation against the accused persons was that they let out the basement for commercial purposes which was not permissible. However, whether the same amounted to an offence under section 105 and 106 of the BNS was for the Trial Court to decide based on evidence. At this stage, this Court could only form a prima facie opinion based on the material placed before it.
The Court noted that the prosecution had primarily relied on clause (d) of the lease deed dated 05-1-2024, by which knowledge of the lessor and lessee was established, as it was clearly mentioned that the lessee intended to use the scheduled property for the commercial purpose/for coaching institutes only. However, the Court stated that prima facie, it was unable to find how such a standard clause could attribute ‘knowledge’, under section 105 of the BNS, onto the accused persons.
The Court stated that the clauses 5.7.2, 5.7.4 and 5.7.8 of the lease-deed made it clear that it was the responsibility of the lessee to obtain necessary permissions from the local authorities for conducting their business, that the lessee was permitted to carry out necessary modifications to the scheduled property and that the lessee was required to operate as per the mandate and bye laws of DDA/MCD or other local authorities. In such situation, the Court, on a prima facie view, found merit in the contention that the role of the accused persons was limited to being owners of property where the incident occurred.
The Court further observed that the investigation regarding the corruption, was stated to be pending at the end of CBI, and no material was placed on record either in status report or otherwise to indicate any corruption angle in the present petition against the accused persons. Thus, the Court found the present case fit for granting bail.
The Court directed the accused persons to make their voluntary donation of Rs. 5 lakhs with DLSA, within two weeks, towards the welfare of the families of the deceased. The member secretary, DSLSA, should then consider the claims from the families of deceased and issue direction for disbursal of the said amount after due consideration. Accordingly, the order dated 13-09-2024, granting interim bail was now confirmed as regular bail on the same terms and conditions.
[Parvinder Singh v. CBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 294, decided on 21-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mohit Mathur and Amit Chadha, Senior Advocates with Daksh Gupta, Gaurav Dua, Kaushal Jeet Kait, Jatin Yadav, Harsh Gautam, Vignesh, Sarthak Sethi and Atin Chadha, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Mohd. Changez Ali Khan, Advocate. Abhijit Anand, Ms. Tisha Kaushik, Niyoti Dayma and Prachi Mittal, Advocates.
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
