BMW Accident: 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 in the BMW accident case, observing that the CCTV footage weakened the Delhi Police's theory of “culpable homicide anchored in delayed care.”

Kaur was accused of driving the BMW car which rammed into a two wheeler being ridden by one Navjot Singh and his wife. While the 52-year-old government employee died in the accident, his wife was grievously injured.

Granting bail to Kaur, Judicial Magistrate First Class Ankit Garg of Patiala House Courts said:

“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 as it rammed into it. On the other hand, it was Kaur's case that her car got flipped and then unintentionally hit the victim.

In an order running into 19 pages, the judge said that the Delhi Police did not provide any material to show that the car was moving at a speed more than normal.

The Court said that the CCTV footage did not support a straightforward, deliberate high-speed ramming of the motorcycle from behind but it rather showed a loss of control culminating in a flip that led to the tragic contact with the car 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 said.

“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 judge said that the conduct of the ambulance driver and paramedic was highly unprofessional and unethical, adding that they left the scene without aiding the injured and did not even bother to check 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 said.

It further said that there was no clear material to establish that the victim was alive after the accident and that the paramedics' statements only described him as unconscious, without recording any clinical 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 judge 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