Bail granted for BMW driver in Dhaula Kuan accident
he 19-page order, passed by judicial magistrate first class Ankit Garg, dismissed the prosecution’s core argument that Makkad’s conduct after the accident attracted Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
A Delhi court on Saturday granted bail to Gaganpreet Makkad, the accused driver in the Dhaula Kuan BMW crash that killed 52-year-old finance ministry employee Navjot Singh and severely injured his wife, while strongly criticising the conduct of an ambulance that arrived at the scene but did not assist the injured.
The 19-page order, passed by judicial magistrate first class Ankit Garg, dismissed the prosecution’s core argument that Makkad’s conduct after the accident attracted Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution had claimed Makkad deliberately took Navjot and his wife, Sandeep, to a hospital linked to her relatives instead of the nearest one, making the offence non-bailable.
However, the court observed that CCTV footage contradicted this theory and instead showed that the BMW first crashed into a divider, overturned, and only then hit Navjot’s two-wheeler, which collided with a DTC bus. The bus did not stop after the accident.
The order noted: “An official ambulance, empty and immediately behind the vehicles involved, is seen arriving within 2 seconds. The ambulance, after watching the incident, stops at some distance; the driver and the paramedic rush towards the scene but, without offering any help or assistance, come back in a relaxed manner within 40 seconds.” The paramedics, it said, neither checked Navjot’s pulse nor administered first aid and left hastily despite the victim lying unconscious beneath the car.
The court rejected the paramedic’s version that Makkad refused help, pointing out that CCTV footage showed her busy rescuing her children and husband from the overturned vehicle. “The video also shows bystanders palpating and then moving the injured to the side, but the paramedics do not help either of the injured persons and quickly leave the scene in a hush manner,” the order said, terming their conduct “highly unprofessional”.
{{/usCountry}}The court rejected the paramedic’s version that Makkad refused help, pointing out that CCTV footage showed her busy rescuing her children and husband from the overturned vehicle. “The video also shows bystanders palpating and then moving the injured to the side, but the paramedics do not help either of the injured persons and quickly leave the scene in a hush manner,” the order said, terming their conduct “highly unprofessional”.
{{/usCountry}}Before delivering the order, the court also questioned the prosecution on the paramedics’ failure to act. When Additional Public Prosecutor Dishank Dhawan argued that the vehicle was a hearse van without first-aid facilities, the court replied that even then it could have transported the injured.
{{/usCountry}}Before delivering the order, the court also questioned the prosecution on the paramedics’ failure to act. When Additional Public Prosecutor Dishank Dhawan argued that the vehicle was a hearse van without first-aid facilities, the court replied that even then it could have transported the injured.
{{/usCountry}}On the prosecution’s claim that timely medical aid could have saved Navjot, the court noted there were no records of his pulse or respiration, making survival unproven. It further held that the prosecution failed to establish the BMW’s speed despite speed cameras on the road, weakening its case of “knowledge” required for culpable homicide. The order concluded the incident was closer to rash and negligent driving.
{{/usCountry}}On the prosecution’s claim that timely medical aid could have saved Navjot, the court noted there were no records of his pulse or respiration, making survival unproven. It further held that the prosecution failed to establish the BMW’s speed despite speed cameras on the road, weakening its case of “knowledge” required for culpable homicide. The order concluded the incident was closer to rash and negligent driving.
{{/usCountry}}