Coaching centre deaths: HC seeks CBI response in bail extension plea by basement co-owners

Delhi HC seeks CBI's response on plea from co-owners of coaching center where three IAS aspirants drowned, extending their bail till Nov 29.

New Delhi

Rau's IAS Study Circle in Old Rajendra Nagar. (HT Photo)

The Delhi high court on Thursday sought the response of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a plea filed by three out of the four co-owners of the basement of a coaching centre — where three IAS aspirants drowned in July — asking for their interim bail to be extended by two months.

A bench of justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued notice in the petitions and fixed November 29 as the next date of hearing.

“Issue notice. Special counsel for CBI, has accepted notice. List on 29/11,” the court said in the order.

On July 27, three IAS aspirants — Tanya Soni, Shreya Yadav, and Nevin Delvin — who had enrolled themselves with the Rau’s IAS Study Circle coaching centre at Old Rajendra Nagar, drowned after the library of the institute, which was illegally operating out of the building’s basement, flooded following heavy rain.

The four co-owners — Sarabjeet Singh, Tejinder Singh, Harinder Singh, and Parminder Singh — were apprehended on July 28, a day after the three IAS aspirants died. Initially handled by the Delhi Police, CBI took over the probe of the case on August 2.

On September 13, the high court granted interim bail to the four co-owners till November 30, subject to them depositing ₹5 crore to the Red Cross Society.

In their petition asking for extension of their interim bail, filed through advocates Kaushal Kait and Gaurav Dua, three out of the four co-owners asserted that CBI had completed the investigation qua them and had also filed the charge sheet. It went on to add that they had not flouted any of the bail conditions imposed by the court, and instead the Supreme Court on November 8 had also stayed the condition regarding depositing ₹5 crore to the Red Cross Society.

CBI in October had informed the high court that it had filed its charge sheet in the case. The court was also informed that the federal agency’s probe against statutory officials was in progress, and it was scrutinising the documents seized during the search and seizure operations carried by it.