Delhi BMW accident: After court grants bail to Gaganpreet Kaur, her advocate claims "she was implicated"

New Delhi [India], September 27 (ANI): Advocate Pradeep Rana on Saturday claimed that his client, Gaganpreet Kaur, was implicated in the BMW accident case after the Delhi court granted her bail, the accused driver, resulting in the death of Finance Ministry official Navjot Singh and grievous injuries to his wife.
Discussing the BMW case, Rana stated that, according to the CCTV footage, there was no fault on the part of the accused, Gaganpreet Kaur, and claimed that the BMW vehicle had unintentionally collided with the footpath.
"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," said Rana.
"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," added Rana.

The accident occurred on September 14 near the Delhi Cantonment Metro Station on Ring Road, when Kaur's BMW allegedly rammed into Singh's two-wheeler, resulting in fatal injuries.
The accused advocate further noted that the accused tried to provide all possible help to the injured. "She tried to give all the possible help to the injured. But unfortunately, she was implicated in this case," said Rana.
Meanwhile, the Patiala House Court, presided over by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg, granted bail on a bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount. As conditions, Kaur has been directed to surrender her passport, appear at every hearing, and not contact staff members of Nulife Hospital or witness Gulfam.
The court's decision was influenced by the CCTV footage, which showed that the accident was accidental and not a result of rash or negligent driving. The footage also revealed that an ambulance arrived at the scene but failed to provide assistance.
The court criticised the ambulance driver and paramedic for not providing aid to the victims, despite being the first to arrive at the scene. The court asked if this constituted medical negligence and suggested that the paramedics' actions be looked into.
Before pronouncing the bail order, the court inquired about medical negligence and stated that an ambulance had arrived within seconds and remained on site for 30 seconds. However, they did not take the injured to the hospital, even though they had no emergency assignment and were heading to the Army Base Hospital, the nearest hospital. Hence, it further asked the police, 'What should be done with this ambulance?' Are they not accused of the offence of death due to a negligent act?
Later, the Court also observed that the Ambulance with a paramedic was duty-bound to take the injured to the hospital. The Paramedics inquired of the bystanders whether anybody wanted help, the Court observed. However, the Patiala court also questioned why the best-equipped vehicle was present, but the Ambulance left the spot within 30 seconds. Is it not the medical negligence? (ANI)