New Delhi, Jun 4 Observing that the arrest of hotel owner Lavkesh Bajaj was "lawful and justified", a Delhi court on Thursday permitted the city police to interrogate him in custody for four days in connection with the blaze that erupted at his hotel in Malviya Nagar on Wednesday, leaving 21 people dead and dozens injured.
The massive fire at Flourish Stay B&B, allegedly operating without a fire NOC in a congested bylane, claimed the lives of nine Indians and 12 foreigners whose relatives were being treated in hospitals nearby.
Judicial Magistrate Bhanu Pratap Singh discarded the vehement submissions challenging the validity of the arrest of Bajaj and said, "...Considering the serious allegations against the accused of committing an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, this court is of the view that the arrest of accused Lavkesh Bajaj is lawful and justified.”
The magistrate took note of the submissions of the prosecutor representing the police that the custodial interrogation of the accused was needed to “ascertain and verify the details of all workers, employees and other persons engaged in the operation of Flourish Stay”.
It also noted the submissions that Bajaj’s custody was needed to “trace, locate and apprehend” Jay Mishra, the accountant, and Rakesh, the hotel manager, as their roles had come under scrutiny in the preliminary probe.
The prosecutor said the police needed to recover and seize documents relating to the ownership and operation of the hotel, besides laying their hands on electricity bills and other documents relevant to the investigation of the cause and spread of the fire.
He said the investigating agency had to recover guest registers, booking records, online booking details, financial records, and bank account records pertaining to the hotel’s functioning, and besides, Bajaj had to be confronted with witnesses, documentary evidence and electronic evidence collected during the investigation.
Delhi Police also needed to corroborate and verify the facts disclosed by the accused, and to identify other persons involved in the construction, management and operation of the premises and ascertain their respective roles, the prosecutor said.
Counsel for the accused, Nitin Ahlawat and Preeti Yadav, opposed the plea for custody, saying no recovery is to be made from the accused and the police already know all the necessary facts.
In its order, the magistrate said, “Considering that the investigation is at an initial stage, this court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for the discovery of relevant facts leading to the incident and to verify the alleged lapses in compliance with mandatory laws.”
He said police custody is also necessary to trace, locate and apprehend the persons whose role has surfaced during the investigation.
“Further, the police custody of the accused is also necessary to recover the relevant documents related to the operation of the property in question; police custody of the accused is also necessary to recover electronic devices and digital evidence connected with the case,” the magistrate said, allowing the plea seeking four days’ police custody.
Meanwhile, the court also permitted Bajaj's advocates to meet him from 5-6 pm daily inside the police station.
Police have registered a case under sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 326(g) (offence of mischief by fire), 324(5) (wrongful damage of property), 125(a) (negligence act that endangers human life and safety), 125(b) (grievous hurt by negligence) and 287 (negligence conduct with respect to fire) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
In the grounds of arrest, the city police said, according to the probe, the incident occurred under circumstances indicating negligence and failure to ensure adequate safety measures for occupants of the premises.
It said Bajaj’s custodial interrogation is required for the recovery and verification of the relevant documents, identification of other responsible persons and ascertaining the complete facts pertaining to the incident.
The reasons for arrest, supplied to the accused, also said that there is a reasonable apprehension that if left at liberty, Bajaj may tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses connected with the case.
It said his arrest was necessary for a fair and effective investigation.
