Rajendra Nagar case: Driver gets bail, court slams cops for ‘over-enthusiasm’

The development came a day after the court dismissed the bail application of Manuj Kathuria, the accused

A Delhi court on Thursday granted bail to the driver of a car who was arrested and charged with culpable homicide in connection with the death by drowning of three IAS aspirants in the flooded basement of an Old Rajendra Nagar coaching centre on July 27, noting that the charges against him were applied in “over-enthusiasm.”

The development came a day after the court dismissed the bail application of Manuj Kathuria, the accused.

“From the perusal of the record, it appears that the present applicant/accused was implicated in over-enthusiasm. He has been charged under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), 2023, which is non-bailable as per Schedule I of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023,” additional sessions judge Rakesh Kumar stated in his order.

Kathuria was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the same amount. The court, however, imposed conditions — that Kathuria must join the investigation whenever required, must not tamper with evidence, must regularly appear in court during the trial, and must not contact the complainant or witnesses. He was also ordered not to make any comments about the case to the media, and to inform the station house officer and the court of any change in his address.

On July 27, three IAS aspirants — Tanya Soni, 21 Shreya Yadav, 25, and Nevin Delvin, 25 — drowned when the illegal basement library of Rau’s IAS Study Circle at Old Rajendra Nagar, where they were studying, flooded following heavy rain.

In the wake of the incident, several arrests were made, including that of the owner-cum-CEO of Rau’s IAS Study Circle, Abhishek Gupta, and coordinator DP Singh, on charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The police also arrested four other individuals, including the basement’s owners and Kathuria — who was driving through the waterlogged road outside the coaching centre — with police arguing that his actions worsened the situation, as his vehicle allegedly created waves that caused the institute’s gate to break and flood the basement.

In his bail application, Kathuria argued that the first information report (FIR) contained no allegations against him, other than that he was driving on an already waterlogged road opposite the institute. He contended that civic authorities responsible for maintaining drainage facilities and preventing illegal coaching centres were shifting the blame for their failures onto him.

Kathuria further asserted that despite the lapse being entirely attributable to officials, including the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi government, none of these officials had been arrested. He also claimed that authorities were exploiting video footage that merely showed him driving through the affected area, unjustly positioning him as a scapegoat for the incident.

Kathuria argued that the entire case against him was based on conjectural CCTV footage that lacked scientific basis and relied solely on optical observations. He also mentioned that there were no barricades or police present, giving him no reason not to drive through his usual route.

Special public prosecutor (SPP) Atul Srivastava, representing the Delhi police, opposed the bail application and requested that if bail were granted, Kathuria should be prohibited from interacting with the media.

Granting him bail, the court considered the Delhi Police response, which indicated that the elements required to establish the offense under BNS section 105 were not sufficiently proven at this stage.

“In view of the submissions made by the State through their reply, since the offense under section 105 of BNS, 2023, which is non-bailable, is not made out at this stage, the remaining charges are bailable in nature,” the court noted.

The court also observed that the charges Kathuria now faces — BNS sections 106(1) (causing death by negligence), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 290 (negligent conduct with respect to buildings), 3(5) (common intention), and 281 (rash driving) — are all bailable.

It further noted that the investigating officer had not collected CCTV footage from the basement before and after the incident.

Delhi Police in response stated that whether BNS section 105 is applicable could be better assessed after an expert team from IIT Delhi visits the site and submits its findings.