A Delhi court on September 27 granted bail to Gaganpreet Makkad who is accused of driving a BMW car that collided with a motor-cycle on September 14, leading to the death of a man named Navjot Singh [State vs Gagan Preet Makkad].

Judicial Magistrate First Class Ankit Garg at the Patiala House Court granted bail after noting that the CCTV footage of the accident contradicted the version of events recorded in the first information report (FIR) registered by the police in the matter.

“Considering (i) the CCTV-established sequence of loss of control, divider impact, flip, and contact; (ii) the ambulance's immediate arrival and abrupt departure without assistance, undermining the attribution of golden-hour loss to the accused; (iii) the documentary nature of the remaining investigation; and (iv) the absence of antecedents and availability of enforceable conditions to obviate tampering, I find that the applicant has made out a case for bail at this stage,” the court stated, while granting the accused car driver, Makkad, bail.

The accident took place on September 14.

The court examined the CCTV footage of the incident in which it was observed that the car did not directly collide with the motorcycle, as recorded in the FIR, but hit the divider and flipped, eventually leading to the collision. 

“The footage does not support a straightforward deliberate high-speed ramming of motorcycle from behind; rather is 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,” the court observed. 

It was also noted by the court that an ambulance was incidentally present at the site. However, the CCTV footage showed that the paramedics did not administer any first aid to the deceased and left abruptly.

The court highlighted that this amounts to professional misconduct of the paramedics for leaving the accident scene without tending to the injured persons.

“It is imperative to note that the paramedics were the first respondents and it was their bounden duty to provide aid. Accident happened in front of their eyes and they chose not to act and flee. Lives could have been saved, aid could have been provided swiftly, only if they would have shown some humanity and just did their duty. 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. Therefore, their failure to provide aid/ assistance shall also be looked from the lens on professional misconduct,” the court stated. 

The court further was not convinced by the prosecution's claim that the accused was liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

“Even if the post- mortem were eventually to show survivability (of the deceased) for a short interval, the primary golden-hour lapse on the footage appears to be that of the paramedics, who, despite being first on scene, rendered no aid and departed. This materially erodes the prosecution's claim that the golden-hour loss is attributable solely, or even primarily, to the accused,” the court stated. 

Moreover, the court considered that the accused is a woman with minor children and has no prior criminal record.

“The Court is mindful of the gravity, a death has occurred and public concern in fatal motor accidents is legitimate. Gravity, however, though important, is not the sole criterion. The function of bail is not punitive but to secure the accused's presence and ensure a fair investigation and trial. With the CCTV weakening the prosecution's theory of culpable homicide anchored in delayed care, and revealing intervening paramedic dereliction, continued incarceration would be disproportionate at this stage,” the Court said. 

Additional Public Prosecutor Dishank Dhawan appeared for the State.