YOGITA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the widow of deceased Shri Sita Ram who died in a terrorist attack on 22nd May 2005 at 8.20 pm in the Liberty Cinema Hall owned by Respondent No. 2. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ( GNCTD?), Respondent No. 1, gave the Petitioner an ex gratia amount of Rs.1 lakh. The deceased left behind the Petitioner and two minor children aged five and three years. In the

(2.) A reply on behalf of Respondent No.1 has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) (Special Cell), Lodhi Colony, Delhi. It is stated that on 22nd May 2005, two bomb blasts took place at the Liberty and Satyam Cinema Halls in New Delhi. In the blast, which took place at Liberty Cinema Hall in Karol Bagh, New Delhi at about 8.20 pm, 55 persons were injured and one died. FIR No.206/2005 under Sections 302/307 IPC and s 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was registered at Police Station Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi. After the case was transferred to the Special Cell, Delhi Police it was revealed during investigations that the offences were committed by a terrorist group and Sections 121/121A/122/123/120B IPC and Sections 16/17/18/19/20/23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were also added in the FIR.

(3.) The affidavit of Respondent No. 1 further states that in the investigations into the bomb blasts which took place in the Liberty Cinema as well as Satyam Cinema revealed that the accused were the .W P.)(C o.N 91321 0o 2f 0 5 g eaP 3 of 71 members of the Babbar Khalsa International ( BKI?). The accused appeared to have taken training in Pakistan under the supervision of BKI chief Wadawa Singh and a large quantity of explosive armed material was recovered at the instance of the accused. 5.7 Kgs. of RDX, 23 detonators, 1 timer, Rs.2.94 lakhs cash, 2 Kgs. Gold, 1 rifle .303 bore, 90 live rounds of .303 bore rifle, 3 empty magazine of .303 bore rifle, 5 magazine of 30 bore pistol, one Tata Sierra vehicle and one Santro Car used for transportation of the explosives to the Cinema Halls besides other articles were recovered. After setting out the details of the investigations carried out, the affidavit states that there was no failure on the part of the Police to take measures to avoid such incidents and for ensuring safety of the people. The incident is termed as a terrorist attack . It is claimed that the incident in which the Petitioner?s husband died was not on account of any negligence on the part of the Police or the State authorities. It is claimed that there is no breach of duty and therefore, no liability under the law of torts is attracted.