On Monday, the police arrested Five more accused in connection with the incident, the five accused — Tejinder Singh, Parvinder Singh, Harvinder Singh and Sarabjeet Singh, the four co-owners of the basement of the coaching centre at Rajinder Nagar, and the driver of a car, Manuj Kathuria — were produced in the court.Judicial Magistrate Vinod Kumar sent them to judicial custody till August 12.Their bail pleas will be heard on Tuesday.Kathuria, the driver of a sports utility vehicle (SUV) that drove through the street that was flooded by rainwater, causing the water to swell and breach the gates of the three-storey building and inundate the basement, was among the five accused produced in the court.Kathuria’s counsel sought his client’s immediate release on bail on the grounds that the arrest was illegal, a copy of the FIR was not provided to his client, who had no intention or knowledge of causing death.”The lane was open….It was a 30-foot road, the water was 2.5-foot high, the speed was just 15 km per hour, I was driving at the centre of the road. Common people have been arrested to please the media and show the students that something is happening. No government officer has been arrested. Intent and knowledge are prerequisites for an offence.How would I know that students were present at the basement?” the lawyer asked.”Other cars were going before me and other (vehicles) came after me. Why did the water not reach other houses? The fault lies with the institutes and (government) departments. Why were officials of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) not arrested?” he asked.However, the court asked him to file written submissions for bail on Tuesday.The counsel for the four co-owners of the coaching centre’s basement told the court that leasing out a building does not fix any liability for the alleged criminal offences, including causing death by negligence and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.He said the offences against the accused under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 102 (culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended), 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 106 (causing death by negligence) were “not applicable” to his clients and that these provisions were “deliberately incorporated” to “bypass” the Arnesh Kumar guidelines (given by the Supreme Court in 2014) on arrest.”None of the sections applies to the co-owners. Giving a building on lease does not fix their responsibility. The safety of the building was the sole responsibility of the lessee, who has been arrested. None of the real accused (government officials) has been arrested,” he said.The court asked the lawyer to file written submissions.
Source link
