Delhi BMW Crash: Gaganpreet Was 'Implicated', Says Lawyer As Court Grants Bail In Accident Case

(MENAFN- Live Mint) After the Patiala House Court granted bail to accused Gaganpreet Kaur in Delhi BMW accident case on September 27, her advocate Pradeep Rana alleged that his client was“implicated” and“there was no fault” of her as seen in the CCTV footage.

Rana also claimed that the accused tried to offer all possible assistance to the injured.

He said,“The bail has been granted to the accused. Right from the beginning, we were making the argument that at least the CCTV footage, which covers the place of the accident, should be brought into the court. It should be seen by the court. Finally, when we ran from pillar to post, that CCTV footage was preserved and was seized by the investigating agency, and it was played in the court.”

"In that CCTV footage, it was clear that there was no fault at all on the part of the accused Gaganpreet, who was driving the BMW vehicle, because accidentally or unintentionally, that vehicle collided with the footpath and thereafter it collided and turtled," he further said.

Also Read | Heart-wrenching photo: Injured wife hugs husband killed in Delhi BMW crash

Rana added,“And when it was turned, it touched the motorcycle and, accidentally, that motorcycle again collided with the bus... She tried to give all the possible help to the injured. But unfortunately, she was implicated in this case."

As part of her bail conditions, Kaur has been instructed to surrender her passport, attend all court hearings, and avoid any contact with staff members of Nulife Hospital or witness Gulfam.

What did the court say?

The court's decision was influenced by CCTV footage, which indicated that the incident was accidental and not caused by reckless or negligent driving, according to ANI. The footage also showed that although an ambulance arrived promptly at the scene, it failed to assist the victims.

The court strongly criticised the ambulance driver and paramedic for not rendering aid, despite being the first responders. It questioned whether their inaction amounted to medical negligence and called for an investigation into their conduct.

Also Read | Delhi BMW crash: Driver arrested after accident killed finance ministry official

Before issuing the bail order, the court highlighted that the ambulance had reached the spot within seconds and remained there for only 30 seconds, yet did not transport the injured to the hospital. Notably, the ambulance had no emergency assignment and was en route to the Army Base Hospital, the closest medical facility.

Hence, it questioned the police, 'What should be done with this ambulance?' Are they not accused of the offence of death due to a negligent act? The Court later noted that the ambulance, which had a paramedic on board, was obligated to transport the injured person to the hospital. It remarked that although the paramedics asked bystanders if anyone needed assistance, the Patiala Court raised concerns about why the best-equipped vehicle was present at the scene but departed within just 30 seconds. The Court asked whether this could be considered medical negligence.

(With inputs from ANI)

MENAFN30092025007365015876ID1110129985