New Delhi [India], September 20 : Delhi Police on Saturday sought time to argue on the bail plea of Gaganpreet Kaur, accused in the Dhaula Kuan BMW accident case that claimed the life of Navjot Singh, Deputy Secretary in the Finance Ministry.
The Patiala House Court adjourned the hearing on the bail petition of Gaganpreet Kaur for September 24.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg adjourned the matter at the request of Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava, who is appointed as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in this case. APP Dishank Dhawan also appeared for the Delhi Police.
SPP requested the court for an adjournment for the same reason as the victim is to be examined, and CCTV is to be shown to the victim.
Delhi police submitted that they have seized the CCTV footage related to pillars number 65 and 67.
Delhi police submitted that the hearing on the bail plea be adjourned as the mobile phone and driving licence of the accused are to be recovered, as it is not handed over to the police.
Defence counsel said that the mobile is with the husband of the accused. They will hand it over to the police by evening.
Advocate Pradeep Rana, along with Gagan and Abhishek Rana, appeared for Gaganpreet Kaur.
Three applications seeking preservation of the CDR record of Witness Gulfam, Gaganpreet Kaur and other details.
The court issued notice to the Delhi Police and listed the same for hearing on the next date.
The application seeking the preservation of CCTV footage is disposed of after the recording of a statement from the Delhi police.
The court on Friday had said that the prosecuting agency cannot be directed at the behest to make a statement on the veracity and contents of the evidence as collected by them.
The court is dealing with a bail application moved by accused Gaganpreet Kaur, who is an accused in the Dhaula Kuan BMW Accident, which claimed the life of Navjot Singh, Deputy Secretary, Finance Ministry.
The Counsel for the accused had submitted that the investigation agency has not specifically mentioned whether the CCTV footage which have been preserved covers the incident, not just the place of the incident.
Advocate Pradeep Rana had submitted that he only wants a statement from the prosecuting agency that the preserved footage has the footage of the incident.
After hearing the submissions, the court had sought clarification from the SHO of Police Station Delhi Cantt, whether the preserved footage contains the footage of cameras installed at Pillar numbers 65 and 67.
However, the court had refused to order the police to make a statement on whether the CCTV footage collected by them contains the accident.
The court had said, "Orders for preservation of CCTV footage have already been given, and clarification has also been sought from SHO to see whether the seized footage contains footage from cameras at pillar no. 65 and 67."
"Therefore, the prayer as sought in the application has already been allowed, and its compliance is awaited. The prosecuting agency, at the behest of accused, cannot be forced to tell the veracity and contents of evidence, as collected by them. Be put up for compliance on 20.09.2025," the court has ordered.