Karol Bagh fire: court grants bail to hotel owners owing to ‘delay’ in trial

Accused told to furnish bond of ₹1 lakh with 2 sureties each

May 19, 2019 01:37 am | Updated 01:37 am IST - New Delhi

A blaze in Hotel Arpit Palace killed 17 people on February 12.

A blaze in Hotel Arpit Palace killed 17 people on February 12.

A Delhi court has granted bail to two accused persons on the ground of likely delay in the trial of Karol Bagh fire, which claimed the lives of 17 people in February.

Granting bail to Rakesh Goel and his brother Sharad Indu Goel, owners of the hotel, on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of a like amount by each accused, Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Aggarwal said: “There are stated to be about 125 witnesses, which are proposed to be examined by the prosecution in the initial chargesheet. The chargesheet, which is proposed to be filed [already filed], itself is stated to be running into more than 4,000 pages.”

“Given the volume of documents and number of witnesses that are to be examined, it is apparent that the trial will consume substantial time. There are bound to be delays and that itself is a ground for grant of bail,” the Judge said.

“Another fact that has to be taken note of is that even after filing of chargesheet, the police may undertake further investigation. It is difficult to provide a timeline when the said further investigation would be completed and when the stage of deciding on the point of charge would be arrived at. Presence of the applicants at trial can be secured by imposition of conditions. Liberty of the applicants cannot be curtailed as punitive measure by presuming his guilt. Continuation of incarceration of the applicants will not aid the trial in any manner,” the Judge further said.

Arguing for bail, counsel for the accused, Ravin Rao and Neha Jain, submitted even if the allegations of irregularities in keeping safety equipment at the hotel was deemed to be correct it would only show breach of certain conditions of license, not commission of offence under Section 304 or 308 of IPC since the said irregularities were not the cause of fire or of loss of lives.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.