Shafaqna India: On Thursday, the Delhi High Court directed the CBI to clarify the cause of the severe waterlogging in Old Rajinder Nagar on July 27, the day when three civil service aspirants drowned in a flooded coaching centre basement.
The court issued this directive while reserving its decision on the bail applications of the jailed co-owners of the basement—Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh, and Sarbjit Singh—in connection with the criminal case concerning the deaths.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma questioned, “What was the cause of the waterlogging on that day? Delhi experienced heavy rain. Was the waterlogging due to the rain or another factor?”
The co-owners, who had requested bail last month, argued that they were merely landlords of the basement, which was rented out to the coaching centre, and thus had no involvement in the tragic incident.
The court instructed the CBI to submit a status report detailing the reason for the waterlogging in the area, the amount of rainfall on the day of the incident, and whether heavy gates at the coaching centre’s entrance were intended to block water from entering.
The three deceased aspirants—Shreya Yadav (25) from Uttar Pradesh, Tanya Soni (25) from Telangana, and Nevin Delvin (24) from Kerala—died when the basement of Rau’s IAS Study Circle was inundated after heavy rain in Old Rajinder Nagar on July 27.
The case, initially handled by Delhi Police, was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and is being investigated under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
The senior lawyer representing the four accused pleaded for bail, emphasizing that they had suffered enough and were willing to face trial. The CBI, however, opposed the bail pleas, citing that the investigation was still in its early stages and independent witnesses needed to be examined to prevent potential influence.
The CBI counsel indicated that a charge sheet against the accused is expected within 10 days. The court inquired whether other buildings near Rau’s IAS Study Circle had also experienced flooding and requested the CBI to investigate.
The counsel for Nevin Delvin’s family argued against granting bail, stating that the coaching centre operated in violation of building and safety regulations and that the owners were aware of the potential risks.
During the hearing, the court also asked if the accused would contribute any compensation to the families of the deceased. The senior lawyer for the accused mentioned that their father might contribute to a fund for the victims, following examples set by other coaching centres.
The CBI counsel reported that 35 to 40 students were present in the basement at the time of the incident, and the water level rose rapidly after the gates broke, akin to a “dam failure.” He also noted that there was 58 mm of rainfall on the day.
Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, representing the accused, argued that the stormwater drain on the road was non-functional and criticized the CBI for not taking action against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) employees. He added that the allegations of fraud for obtaining safety clearances were irrelevant to them, as the clearances were provided by the previous owner.
Mathur contended that the accused could not have anticipated such a disaster under similar conditions, especially since they did not reside at the premises. He highlighted that some students were instructed to leave, but not all did.
The judge remarked on the general casual attitude towards such tragedies, stating, “When tragedies occur, our eyes open.”
On August 23, a trial court had denied bail to the co-owners, stating that precise knowledge of the incident was not required to establish the offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.