Delhi Court Grants Bail To Accused, Notes CCTV Shows Loss Of Control Not Deliberate Ramming
A Delhi Court has granted bail to Gaganpreet Kaur, accused within the BMW accident case, observing that the CCTV footage weakened the Delhi Police’s concept of “culpable homicide anchored in delayed care.”
Kaur was accused of driving the BMW automobile which rammed right into a two wheeler being ridden by one Navjot Singh and his spouse. While the 52-year-old authorities worker died within the accident, his spouse was grievously injured.
Granting bail to Kaur, Judicial Magistrate First Class Ankit Garg of Patiala House Courts stated:
“With the CCTV weakening the prosecution’s theory of culpable homicide anchored in delayed care, and revealing intervening paramedic dereliction, continued incarceration would be disproportionate at this stage.”
As per the Delhi Police, the BMW hit the deceased from behind because it rammed into it. On the opposite hand, it was Kaur’s case that her automobile bought flipped after which unintentionally hit the sufferer.
In an order operating into 19 pages, the decide stated that the Delhi Police didn’t present any materials to indicate that the automobile was shifting at a pace greater than regular.
The Court stated that the CCTV footage didn’t assist an easy, deliberate high-speed ramming of the bike from behind however it slightly confirmed a lack of management culminating in a flip that led to the tragic contact with the automobile and a DTC bus.
“This clarification weakens the foundation for imputing “knowledge” of likely death at the stage of initial impact and, on the present material, brings the occurrence closer to rash/negligent driving than to culpable homicide premised on the mode of collision. Whether a higher mental element can ultimately be proved is a matter for trial; at the bail stage, the reduced strength of that allegation must be duly weighed,” the Court stated.
“Therefore, although the narration in the FIR is that the BMW car struck the motorcycle from behind in a direct collision. However, upon perusal of the CCTV footage, this version does not stand corroborated,” it added.
Further, the decide stated that the conduct of the ambulance driver and paramedic was extremely unprofessional and unethical, including that they left the scene with out aiding the injured and didn’t even trouble to verify his pulse.
“…in the present case, miraculously, the ambulance was present just behind the crash. It was available within 2 seconds, it was empty, it did not have any other assignment and it was admittedly going towards Base Hospital. But it still did not help the victim and almost fled away from the spot quickly. The victim, due to ignorance of duty by the paramedics, was taken almost after 7 minutes of the accident towards the hospital,” the Court stated.
It additional stated that there was no clear materials to determine that the sufferer was alive after the accident and that the paramedics’ statements solely described him as unconscious, with out recording any medical examination of pulse or respiration.
“The Court is mindful of the gravity, a death has occurred and public concern in fatal motor accidents is legitimate. Gravity, however, though important, is not the sole criterion. The function of bail is not punitive but to secure the accused’s presence and ensure a fair investigation and trial,” the decide concluded.
Counsel for Accused: Advocates Pradeep Rana,Gagan Bhatnagar, Katik Gadi, Riya Rana and Rahul Prasashar
Counsel for State: APP Dishank Dhawan
Counsel for Complainant: Sh.Atul Kumar, Bhaskar Bhardwaj, Ankush Munjal and Utsav Choudharyand Rajkamal
