BMW Accident: Court asks Delhi Police to produce CCTV footage, relevant evidence

New Delhi [India], September 24 (ANI): Patiala House Court on Wednesday asked the Delhi police to produce the CCTV footage and other evidence related to the BMW accident at Dhaula Kuan to support their case.
The court has also requested that the defence counsel and public prosecutor submit written arguments. The court is hearing the bail plea of the accused driver, Gaganpreet Kaur.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg, after hearing submissions by the counsel for the accused, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for Delhi, and the counsel for the complainant, directed the Delhi police to produce the CCTV footage and other relevant evidence and listed the matter for hearing on Thursday at 2 PM.
At the outset, Advocate Pradeep Rana, Counsel for the accused Gaganpreet Kaur, submitted that there is no wrong intention on the part of the accused Gaganpreet Kaur. She called the Venkateshwara Hospital, but the call went unanswered. She also made a call to PCR.

The counsel submitted that Gaganpreet Kaur took the injured to Nulife Hospital and called her father to arrange all the necessary items for the treatment of the wounded Navjot Singh and his wife.
"The FIR was lodged after a 10-hour delay. Why did the police take this much time to file an FIR? The counsel for the accused questioned. It was also submitted that a PCR was made at 1.38-1.39 on the day of the incident, the counsel. The alleged intention of the accused is misconceived. She is not a doctor and did not have the knowledge of how much time the patient may have to live, the counsellor said. It is not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, advocate Pradeep Rana argued.
"She is not seeking anticipatory bail; she has been in custody for 10 days since her arrest," the counsel added. "She is not a flight risk; she cooperated in the investigation. Her mobile and drive were handed over to the police when asked, the counsel submitted."
The counsel said that the entire family is a victim, and all the evidence is with the police. She may be granted bail.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Atul Shrivastava, along with Additional Public Prosecutor Dishank Dhawan, opposed the bail plea, submitting that the AIIMS hospital is closer to the accused's residence compared to Nulife hospital.
There is the 'golden hour' principle to reach a hospital and provide early medical treatment, the SPP argued. He opposed the bail plea by arguing that the papers prepared by the hospital did not mention a specific time, the SPP stated.
The Delhi police SPP submitted that the accused's intention was not to inform the police about the incident. The caller from the hospital told the police that one patient is dead and one is injured. Help is needed.
The SPP further argued that the accused lived in South Delhi for 6 years and was well aware of the area and the hospitals there.
The intention of the accused was not to save the injured, but rather to save the accused from legal proceedings, the SPP Argued.
It was also argued by the SPP that she took the injured to a hospital owned by her relatives. It is also argued that the evidence has already been tampered with. It is not a case of granting bail to the accused, the SPP argued.
SPP Shrivastava also mentioned that the witness, Gulfam, stated that the accused asked him to take them towards the Azadpur side.
In response to a court query, the investigation officer informed the court that a notice had been issued to BMW, requesting a crash report to determine the speed of the car.
The court has asked the counsel for the accused and the Police to file a written document and CCTV footage, etc, tomorrow.
Advocate Atul Kumar, counsel for the complainant, argued that the injured were kept on a stretcher in the lobby of the hospital for hours.
On the other hand, the accused was admitted to the ICU, he added. There is an army base hospital at a distance of 2 minutes from the site of the accident, the counsel submitted.
The legal requirement is to take the injured to the nearest hospital, the counsel for the complainant submitted.
He further submitted that the victim stated that she was taken to a faraway hospital. Despite this, she requested that she be taken to the nearest hospital. (ANI)