New Delhi [India], September 25 (ANI): Delhi’s Patiala House Court on Thursday reserved its order on the bail plea of Gaganpreet Kaur, arrested in connection with the Dhaula Kuan BMW crash case in which Finance Ministry Deputy Secretary Navjot Singh died.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg reserved the order after perusing CCTV footage of the incident and hearing arguments from Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Atul Shrivastava, defence counsel Pradeep Rana, and the counsel for the complainant.
The order will be pronounced on September 27, when the accused will also be produced before the court.
During the hearing, the Delhi police played the CCTV footage of the incident in court.
SPP Atul Shrivastava submitted that there are more than a dozen hospitals available at lesser distance. But the accused took the injured to the hospital far away. Nulife is a small nursing home.
It was also submitted that the speed of the car was high, which is clear from the condition of the car. The maximum speed on the strech is 50 km per hour, SPP submitted. He also said that car was at high speed and hit the bike.
He also submitted that Nulife Hospital is a Nursing home which is meant for subsequent care. Hospitals are meant for initial treatment.
On the other hand, advocate Pradeep Rana, alongwith Advocate Gagan Bhatnagar, counsel for the accused, submitted that not in a single frame of footage was the motorcycle of the deceased ahead of the car.
It was submitted that when the car collided with the footpath and overturned, the bike followed the car. Both were at the same speed.
Advocate Pradeep Rana argued that there was not the knowledge to the driver that bike was following and will collide with the car. Gaganpreet Kaur had no knowledge, therefore there is no intention. There is no ground to invoke section 304 IPC (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
It was further argued by the defence counsel, “Was she required to go into the details of hospitals in a situation of trauma. If she had intention, she (Gaganpreet Kaur) would had fled from the spot.”
Counsel for accused also mentioned the Supreme Court order in Sanjeev Nanda BMW case. He said that accused Gaganpreet Kaur did not flee from the spot. Rather she took the injured to the hospital.
The mobile phone is with the police. They can verify whether she made a call to PCR. They can have the CDR. She did not flee from the spot but took the injured to the hospital, the counsel argued.
The elements of rash and negligent driving and the element of intention can’t coexist, advocate Rana argued.
Basic investigation is completed and her custody is not required, he added.
On the other hand, SPP submitted, “We have a statement of a person in an ambulance who offered help, but the accused refused to take help. He said that he can take the injured to the nearest hospital in his ambulance, but she refused to take help.”
SPP further stated that the accused, who was in perfect physical condition, was admitted to the ICU at Nulife Hospital. Her blood sample was not taken. It was taken after 7 hours.
SPP also submitted that the investigation is still ongoing. “Now, under BNSS, we are entitled to take custody within 60 days. The bail should not be granted to the accused.”
Advocate Atul Kumar, counsel for the complainant, argued that Gaganpreet Kaur could be tracked if she had fled. She meticulously planned, and she planned in a cold blood manner and took the injured to a hospital of her known persons.
SPP further submitted that the accused took the injured to the hospital, in her custody, which became fatal for the injured.
SPP submitted that the accident occured due to the fault of the accused. The same has been accurately narrated in the FIR. (ANI)
The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.
