A Delhi court has rejected the bail plea of Hariram Gupta, husband of the owner of a building that collapsed in Satya Niketan, killing seven. The court noted the investigation is at an early stage and one victim remains critical.
Delhi’s Patiala House court has recently rejected the bail application of Hariram Gupta, who is the husband of Urmila Gupta, the owner of the building that collapsed on September 6 in Delhi’s Satya Niketan, resulting in the deaths of seven people and injuries to several others. The court said that the investigation is at the initial stage, the charge sheet has not yet been filed, and one of the victims is still stated to be critical. “Suffice it to say, at this stage, that the investigation is going on and is at its initial stage. This is, as such, not a stage when bail be granted,” the court noted.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) SPS Laler dismissed the bail application moved on behalf of Hari Ram Gupta after considering the submissions of defence counsel and Public Prosecutor.
Court’s Rationale for Denying Bail
The court said, “Having regard to the extent of the tragedy, seven deaths, several injured, and one victim still stated to be critical and having further regard to the circumstance that the applicant is the husband of the owner, that electricity connections of the premises stand in his name, and that witnesses examined so far have spoken of his involvement in the work at the site; to the fact that the property was yielding substantial monthly rent while the question of its upkeep remains to be examined; and to the fact that investigation is at the initial stage and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail at this stage.”
“The application is, accordingly, dismissed,” Special Judge Laler ordered on September 18. However, the Court directed the Jail Superintendent concerned to ensure that the applicant is provided all prescribed medicines, as may be advised, without delay.
“The material collected during investigation does not persuade the Court to treat the present applicant as a person so far removed from the premises as to justify regular bail,” the court observed while rejecting the bail plea.
The court also referred to investigation papers which indicate that witnesses examined so far have spoken of the applicant’s involvement in the work that was being carried out at the premises. The court also said that the defence that the work was only levelling of the ground floor, and not construction, is a matter to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at trial.
Arguments Presented in Court
It was submitted on behalf of the Accused that he is a super-senior citizen, about 81–82 years of age, a retired Sergeant of the Indian Air Force who left service in 1981. He is a person with no prior criminal antecedents. It was further stated that he is suffering from Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus and Gliptin-induced Bullous Pemphigoid, for which he requires regular medication, including steroids.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the application by submitting that the investigation is at an early stage; the role of members of the family in relation to the building, its use as a densely occupied paying-guest house, and the work being carried out at the site is still being examined. It was also submitted by the APP that the Accused is the husband of the owner; the electricity connections of the premises stand in his name; and that witnesses examined so far have spoken of his involvement in the work at the premises. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)