Ayush Garg Agrawal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court rejected the bail application. The Court found that the incident was grave and serious, falling within the category of heinous offences. Evidence, including call detail records showing continuous communication between the applicant and co-accused prior to the incident, and the applicant's location being within the tower coverage area near the factory, was considered. The applicant's memorandum, where he allegedly disclosed looking after the factory and possessing account registers, along with collected documents prima facie indicating his involvement, were also noted. Furthermore, Goods and Services Tax (GST) documents were found to reveal the applicant's involvement in manufacturing activities. The Court concluded that there was sufficient material indicating the applicant's prima facie involvement in the alleged criminal conspiracy and association with illegal manufacturing and storage. Given the nature of allegations, material collected, alleged active involvement, and the gravity of the incident, the Court found a possibility of the applicant influencing or tampering with witnesses if released on bail. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to grant bail at this stage.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Ayush Garg Agrawal (the applicant) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 42/2024, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Harda. The FIR pertains to an explosion at Rajesh Fire Works, a firecracker factory, on February 6, 2024, which resulted in 13 deaths and injuries to 301 people. The prosecution alleges that the factory was operated by several accused, including the applicant, who failed to implement adequate safety measures. The applicant claims innocence, stating no direct or indirect connection to the crime and that his implication is based on suspicion and prior supply of aluminium powder. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody for a considerable period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail given the serious nature of the offences and the material collected against him? The applicant argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated, with no direct or indirect connection to the factory's ownership, management, or operation. He contended that the only evidence connecting him is bills for aluminium powder supplied prior to the incident, and this powder does not indisputably fall under explosives requiring a license. He further argued that there is no evidence of his negligence or involvement in the incident, and his implication is based on suspicion and the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The applicant also highlighted his age, permanent residency, completion of investigation, and the substantial period of custody as grounds for bail. The State argued that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed is not sufficient for bail. They contended that the seriousness of the offence, material collected, and potential to influence witnesses are crucial. The State asserted that the applicant cannot be discharged based solely on no incriminating articles recovered from his possession, as the case relies on the totality of evidence, including documentary material and circumstances. The magnitude of the incident and the alleged acts concerning public safety cannot be overlooked.