Praveen Kumar Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Praveen Kumar Agrawal, filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 259/2026. The prosecution case alleges that the applicant runs a plastic materials shop. On April 23, 2026, welding work on the shop's roof caused a spark that ignited a fire, which spread to firecrackers and then to the complainant's house, damaging household items. Initially, bailable offences under Sections 336, 268, and 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were registered. However, on April 27, 2026, non-bailable offences under Sections 324(6) and 326(g) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 9(b)(i)(b) of the Explosive Act, 1884, were added. The applicant claims to be innocent, stating his shop is GST registered and he deals in wholesale plastic materials, not firecrackers or explosives. He also provided a consent letter for using the premises and noted that he suffered losses himself.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It held that the initial offences registered were bailable. The subsequent addition of non-bailable offences appeared to be made without prima facie material regarding the possession or storage of explosive substances. The Court noted that the FIR itself suggested an accidental fire during welding work involving plastic materials. Considering that no loss of life or damage to third-party property was reported, the applicant suffered substantial losses, and the documents prima facie indicated a lawful wholesale plastic business, the Court was of the opinion that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing a surety, subject to several conditions including not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, appearing before the trial court, submitting identity documents, and not involving himself in similar offences.

Key Issues

1. Whether the addition of non-bailable offences under Sections 324(6) and 326(g) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 9(b)(i)(b) of the Explosive Act, 1884, was justified, given the initial registration of bailable offences and the nature of the incident. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contended that the addition of non-bailable offences was arbitrary and malicious, influenced by the complainant, and made without proper inquiry. He argued that the ingredients of these offences were not attracted as no explosive or inflammable substance was recovered, and the incident was an accidental fire involving plastic materials. He highlighted his GST registration and Udyam Registration Certificate as proof of lawful business. He also stated there was no loss of life or damage to third-party property, and he himself suffered losses. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.