In Delhi BMW crash, woman driver gets bail, court says, ‘CCTV footage alters FIR version’

“…the footage does not support a straightforward, deliberate high-speed ramming of the motorcycle from behind; rather, it shows a loss of control culminating in a flip that led to the tragic contact with the car and the 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,” said Judicial Magistrate First Class Ankit Garg of Patiala House Court in his order.

“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,” he added.

Gaganpreet took Singh to Nulife hospital in GTB Nagar, which was nearly 18 km from the accident spot. A day after the accident, she was arrested from the hospital where she was undergoing treatment.

According to Public Prosecutor Atul Kumar Srivastava, who represented the Delhi Police in court, Makkad had gone to the hospital, which “belonged to her relative” in order to “save themselves from the investigation”.

On the other hand, senior advocate Pradeep Rana, who represented Makkad, argued in court that “the motorcycle was never in front of the car. The car was in front. Both vehicles had the same speed. The car hit a divider and then the man fell from the bike and was hit by a bus.” The police invoked culpable homicide not amounting to murder against Gaganpreet, a non-bailable offence which has a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

Meanwhile, the court also relied on the presence of an ambulance at the spot which left the spot “without aiding the injured”. “The conduct of the ambulance driver and paramedic is highly unprofessional and unethical. Without aiding the injured, they left the scene. They did not even bother to check the pulse of the victim,” said the Judicial Magistrate.

“…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,” he added.

The Judge also said that the CCTV footage showed that the accused did not abscond from the spot.

“In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution’s allegation under Section 105 BNS rests on a fragile foundation at this stage. The CCTV footage materially alters the version in the FIR, introduces intervening factors such as the conduct of the paramedics and the DTC bus,” the Judicial Magistrate added.