Satya Niketan Building Collapse Case: Delhi Court Calls for Medical Report on Hari Ram Gupta's Bail Plea

New Delhi: The Patiala House Court issued a notice on the bail plea of Hari Ram Gupta, seeking regular bail, highlighting his medical condition and age factor. His earlier bail plea was dismissed by the court. This case pertains to the building collapse in Satya Niketan on September 6.

Additional Sessions Judge SPS Laler has called for a medical report from the jail authorities. The court has listed the matter for hearing on September 30. Advocate Yashpal Singh, counsel for the accused, submitted that he is 82 years old and is suffering from high blood sugar.

The court on September 18 rejected the bail application of Gupta, who is the husband of Urmila Gupta, the owner of the building that collapsed on September 6, resulting in the death of 7 people and injuries to several others. The court has said that the investigation is at the initial stage. The charge-sheet is yet to be filed. One of the victims is still stated to be critical. Suffice it to say, at this stage, the investigation is ongoing and is at its initial stage, further noting that this is not a stage where bail can be granted.

The court had said, “Having regard to the extent of the tragedy, seven deaths, several injured, and one victim still stated to be critical and having further regard to the circumstances that the applicant is the husband of the owner, that electricity connections of the premises stand in his name, and that witnesses examined so far have spoken of his involvement in the work at the site; to the fact that the property was yielding substantial monthly rent while the question of its upkeep remains to be examined; and to the fact that investigation is at the initial stage and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail at this stage.”

"The application is, accordingly, dismissed," Special Judge Laler ordered on September 18. However, the court directed the Jail Superintendent concerned to ensure that the applicant is provided all prescribed medicines, as may be advised, without delay. "The material collected during investigation does not persuade the Court to treat the present applicant as a person so far removed from the premises as to justify regular bail," the court observed while rejecting the bail plea.

The court had also referred to investigation papers which indicate that witnesses examined so far have spoken of the applicant’s involvement in the work that was being carried out at the premises.  The court had also said that the defence that the work was only levelling off the ground floor, and not construction, is a matter to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at trial.

It was submitted on behalf of the accused that he is a super-senior citizen, about 81-82 years of age, a retired Sergeant of the Indian Air Force who left service in 1981. He is a person with no prior criminal antecedents. It was further stated that he is suffering from Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus and Gliptin-induced Bullous Pemphigoid, for which he requires regular medication, including steroids. 

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the application by submitting that the investigation is at an early stage; the role of members of the family in relation to the building, its use as a densely occupied paying-guest house, and the work being carried out at the site is still being examined.

It was also submitted by the APP that the Accused is the husband of the owner; the electricity connections of the premises stand in his name; and that witnesses examined so far have spoken of his involvement in the work at the premises.

Also Read: LPU Protests: Students Describe 'Horrific' Scenes as Violence Erupts