BMW Crash: Court Adjourns Bail Hearing Of Accused Gaganpreet To Sept 24

The court accepted the police plea that they were yet to seize her mobile phone and driving licence.

New Delhi: The Delhi Police on Saturday sought time to argue on the bail plea of Gaganpreet Kaur, accused in the Dhaula Kuan BMW accident case that claimed the life of Navjot Singh, Deputy Secretary in the Finance Ministry.

The Patiala House Court adjourned the hearing on the bail petition of Gaganpreet Kaur to September 24.

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg adjourned the matter at the request of Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava, who is appointed as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in this case. APP Dishank Dhawan also appeared for the Delhi Police.

The SPP requested the court for an adjournment for the same reason as the victim is to be examined and the CCTV is to be shown to the victim.

The Delhi Police submitted that they have seized the CCTV footage related to pillars number 65 and 67.

They submitted that the hearing on the bail plea be adjourned as the mobile phone and driving licence of the accused are to be recovered, as the same have not been handed over to the police.

ALSO READ: No Bail For BMW Crash Accused, Gaganpreet To Stay In Judicial Custody For Now

The defence counsel said that the mobile phone is with the husband of the accused. They will hand it over to the police by evening.

Advocate Pradeep Rana, along with Gagan and Abhishek Rana, appeared for Gaganpreet Kaur.

The court issued notice to the Delhi Police and listed the same for hearing on the next date.

The application seeking the preservation of CCTV footage is disposed of after the recording of a statement from the Delhi Police.

The counsel for the accused had submitted that the investigation agency has not specifically mentioned whether the CCTV footage, which has been preserved, covers the incident, not just the place of the incident.

Advocate Pradeep Rana had submitted that he only wants a statement from the prosecuting agency that the preserved footage has the footage of the incident.

After hearing the submissions, the court had sought clarification from the SHO of Police Station Delhi Cantt, whether the preserved footage contains the footage of cameras installed at pillar numbers 65 and 67.

However, the court had refused to order the police to make a statement on whether the CCTV footage collected by them covers the accident.

The court had said, "Orders for preservation of CCTV footage have already been given, and clarification has also been sought from SHO to see whether the seized footage contains footage from cameras at pillar no. 65 and 67."

"Therefore, the prayer as sought in the application has already been allowed, and its compliance is awaited. The prosecuting agency, at the behest of accused, cannot be forced to tell the veracity and contents of evidence, as collected by them. Be put up for compliance on September 20," the court has ordered.