Janakpuri pit death: Delhi HC issues notice in contractor’s bail plea News Air Insight

Spread the love


New Delhi

The high court has sought the Delhi Police’s response and scheduled the next hearing for March 30. (Representative photo)
The high court has sought the Delhi Police’s response and scheduled the next hearing for March 30. (Representative photo)

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice on a petition filed by contractor Himanshu Gupta, seeking bail in connection with the death of a 25-year-old motorcyclist in an uncovered excavation pit dug for sewer work in Janakpuri, West Delhi.

A bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sought the Delhi Police’s response against a trial court order issued on March 23 and scheduled the next hearing for March 30.

“Issue notice. Let a status report be filed,” the court said in the order.

Kamal Dhyani, a resident of Palam village, plunged into a deep pit on the intervening night of February 5 and 6 on a public road in Janakpuri. The excavation had been carried out to rehabilitate sewer lines under a project of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB). The victim was pulled out of the pit by fire brigade personnel and taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, where doctors declared him dead.

Investigators found that the site lacked basic safety arrangements, such as barricades, blinkers, warning signage and adequate lighting, all of which are measures mandated in the contract and conditions imposed by the traffic for roadworks.

Gupta was arrested by the Delhi Police on March 10 after the Delhi High Court denied him anticipatory bail. On March 23, the trial court rejected his bail plea, observing that the allegations prima facie indicated that a hazardous public excavation on a busy road had been left inadequately guarded, thereby raising serious concerns regarding the duty to protect human life and ensure public safety.

The court further noted that the case was still at an early stage following his arrest, and the investigation was ongoing with regard to the recovery of documents, operational control, permissions, and his role in the execution of the contract and subcontract.

In his petition before the high court, Gupta contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He claimed that he was not in Delhi at the time of the incident and was arrested without proper verification of facts. He also contended that there was no evidence against him and that his arrest was based solely on a disclosure statement, despite his absence from the CCTV footage. He further stated that he was only the suspended director of the firm engaged in sewer rehabilitation work and pointed out that his brother, Kavish Gupta, had been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *