Delhi High Court to Hear Fresh Bail Plea of Coaching Center Owners in IAS Students' Drowning Case

Co-owners of a basement coaching center in Old Rajinder Nagar have appealed to the Delhi High Court for bail after a trial court rejection. They argue they were not named in the FIR and have cooperated with the investigation. The trial court held them liable for the illegal use of the basement.

The four co-owners of a basement coaching centre in Old Rajinder Nagar have approached the Delhi High Court for bail after their initial request was denied by a trial court. The trial court rejected their bail application last Friday, holding them responsible for the deaths of three IAS aspirants who drowned in the basement on July 27, 2024. The court stated that the owners were liable due to their illegal action of using the basement for educational purposes.

The fresh plea in the Delhi High Court argues that the trial court overlooked important factors, such as the co-owners not being named in the FIR. The plea also mentions that the co-owners voluntarily reported to the police and cooperated with the investigation, showcasing their bona fides despite not being summoned by the investigating officer. According to the plea, the trial court failed to consider that vicarious liability does not apply in criminal cases, as strict criminal liability can only be attributed to the individual who directly commits the crime.

In their earlier bail application, the accused blamed the tragic incident on heavy rain, calling it an 'act of God,' and also criticized the civic agency for the area's inadequate sewer system. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is handling the probe, argued that the basement was meant for storage, not for educational activities. CBI claims that the accused were aware of the risks involved in operating a coaching centre in the basement.

The court also reviewed testimony from a Karol Bagh resident who had previously warned about the illegal use of the basement by Rau's IAS, noting it posed a potential danger. This resident had alerted the authorities about a month before the tragic incident. The court found that the owners were fully aware of the risks and their illegal actions contributed directly to the tragedy.

(With inputs from agencies.)