The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought an explanation from the CBI regarding the cause of severe waterlogging in Old Rajinder Nagar on July 27, which led to the tragic deaths of three civil services aspirants who drowned in a flooded coaching center basement.

The co-owners of the basement — Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh, and Sarbjit Singh — filed for bail in the high court last month, arguing that they were simply landlords who had rented out the basement to the coaching center. They contended that they had no involvement in the tragic incident.

"What was the reason on that day? Delhi has witnessed heavy downpours. Why so much waterlogging on that day? Was it the rain or something else," questioned Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma while hearing the bail pleas of the jailed co-owners of the basement.

The bench reserved its decision on the bail pleas and directed the agency to submit a status report detailing the cause of the waterlogging in the area, the amount of rainfall on the day of the incident, and the installation of heavy gates at the entrance of the coaching center, allegedly used to "block" water from the road.

On the evening of July 27, three civil service aspirants—Shreya Yadav, 25, from Uttar Pradesh; Tanya Soni, 25, from Telangana; and Nevin Delvin, 24, from Kerala—tragically lost their lives when the basement of the building housing Rau's IAS Study Circle in Old Rajinder Nagar, central Delhi, was inundated due to heavy rain.

The case, being investigated under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), was transferred from the Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the high court.

"I am in custody. I have suffered enough. Please consider... At this stage, I am only asking for liberty. I will face the trial," the senior lawyer appearing for the four accused, who are brothers, said.

Opposing the bail pleas, the CBI argued that the investigation was still in its early stages and that no relief should be granted until independent witnesses are examined to prevent potential influence. The CBI counsel indicated that a charge sheet against the accused is expected to be filed within 10 days.

The court emphasized the importance of the case and inquired whether other buildings near Rau's IAS Study Circle had also experienced flooding. Additionally, the counsel for Nevin Dalvin's father argued against granting bail, stating that the coaching center was operating in violation of building and safety norms and that the owners were aware of the potential risks due to non-compliance.

During the hearing, the court asked the senior counsel for the accused if they would provide any damages or compensation to the deceased aspirants' families. The senior lawyer for the accused stated that their father is willing to contribute to a compensation fund, as some coaching centers have done.

The CBI counsel stated that, according to witness statements, 35-40 students were in the basement at the time of the incident, and water surged rapidly in a manner similar to a "dam failure" after the gates broke down. He also noted that there was 58 mm of rainfall on the day of the incident.

Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, representing the accused, argued that the storm water drain on the road was non-functional and criticized the CBI for not taking action against Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) employees despite allegations of misconduct. Mathur also claimed that any allegations of fraud in obtaining safety clearances were irrelevant to the accused, as all necessary clearances were provided by the previous owner when they purchased the property.

Emphasizing that the accused had no knowledge or intention related to the deaths, Mathur argued that if similar rainfall had not caused incidents on other days, it was unreasonable to expect the accused to anticipate such a consequence, especially since they do not reside on the premises.

"They (students) were asked to leave (according to a witness statement). Some left, some did not.

"It is an unfortunate situation, no doubt about that... (but) whom do you attribute that to? They (CBI) are still contemplating action to be taken against public servants," he submitted.

"We all have become very casual. When tragedies happen, our eyes open," the judge lamented.

On August 23, a trial court denied the bail applications of the co-owners, stating that it is not necessary for the offender to have exact knowledge of the incident to be charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In their high court application, one of the co-owners argued that the trial court overlooked the fact that they had leased the basement and the third floor of the building to the coaching center, an activity allowed under MCD norms. The co-owner contended that they never intended to commit such an offense and had no knowledge of it.