Mukesh Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Mukesh Agrawal, filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in connection with a crime registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Explosive Act, 1984. The complainant alleged that a fire, originating from welding work on the roof of a plastic goods shop owned by the applicant and operated by his brother-in-law, Praveen Agrawal, spread to an adjoining warehouse. The fire allegedly caused firecrackers stored therein to explode, damaging the complainant's house. The applicant contended that the shop and its contents belonged to Praveen Agrawal, who operated it under the name "Praveen Agency" registered under GST. The applicant claimed no role in the business and that the fire was due to a short circuit. He also pointed out that Praveen Agrawal had already been granted anticipatory bail on parity.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. The primary allegation against the applicant was based on his ownership of the premises where the incident occurred, while the shop was admittedly operated by the co-accused, Praveen Agrawal. The Court noted that the co-accused had promptly informed the police, and an Istagasa was registered before the FIR. At this stage, there was no material to prima facie establish the applicant's involvement in storing firecrackers or explosive substances, nor any direct role in the incident's occurrence. Considering the nature of allegations, the applicant's attributed role, the principle of parity with the co-accused who was granted bail, and the apparent lack of necessity for custodial interrogation, the Court found the application deserved to be allowed. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety, and adhering to conditions including not influencing 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 applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations against him and the fact that the premises were owned by him but operated by a co-accused. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He submitted that the business and goods belonged to his brother-in-law, Praveen Agrawal, who operated "Praveen Agency" under GST, and the applicant had no involvement in its daily affairs. He further stated that the fire was due to a short circuit, and an Istagasa was registered prior to the FIR. No explosives were recovered from him, and there's no evidence of his involvement in the firecracker business. He also highlighted that a similarly placed co-accused, Praveen Agrawal, was granted anticipatory bail on parity. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the grant of anticipatory bail but did not dispute that the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail.