• HOME»
  • India»
  • Delhi High Court to Hear Bail Pleas of Co-Owners in IAS Aspirants’ Deaths Case: Seeks CBI Reply

Delhi High Court to Hear Bail Pleas of Co-Owners in IAS Aspirants’ Deaths Case: Seeks CBI Reply

The Delhi High Court will resume hearings on the bail pleas of four co-owners of a basement in Old Rajinder Nagar on September 11. The case involves the tragic deaths of three IAS aspirants—Shreya Yadav (25), Tanya Soni (25), and Nevin Delvin (24)—who drowned in a flooded basement on July 27.

Advertisement
Delhi High Court to Hear Bail Pleas of Co-Owners in IAS Aspirants’ Deaths Case: Seeks CBI Reply

The Delhi High Court will resume hearings on the bail pleas of four co-owners of a basement in Old Rajinder Nagar on September 11. The case involves the tragic deaths of three IAS aspirants—Shreya Yadav (25), Tanya Soni (25), and Nevin Delvin (24)—who drowned in a flooded basement on July 27.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been directed to file a response to the bail applications. The four co-owners, Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh, and Sarbjit Singh, are seeking bail, arguing that they were merely landlords and had no direct involvement in the incident.

The deaths occurred after heavy rains caused flooding in the basement of the building housing Rau’s IAS Study Circle. The co-owners claim that the basement and third floor were leased to the coaching center, which they assert was a permissible activity under Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) norms.

Previously, a sessions court denied their bail applications, citing that the CBI’s investigation was still at an early stage and the exact roles of the co-owners needed to be clarified. The case, now under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections related to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, was transferred to the CBI from the Delhi Police by the high court.

In their bail applications, the co-owners argue that they voluntarily cooperated with the investigation and that the trial court failed to consider their role as landlords and their compliance with MCD regulations. They also emphasize that they were not named in the FIR and acted in good faith.

The trial court had previously remarked that the specific knowledge of the exact incident was not necessary to invoke charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Advertisement