1 2026:CGHC:23039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 749 of 2026 • Praveen Kumar Agrawal S/o. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal Aged About 53 Years Occupation Business, R/o. Kudla Vasundhara City, (Agrasen Ward) P.S.- Ambikapur (Wrongly Mention As Sadar) Tehsil- Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G) ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Ambikapur (Wrongly Mention As Sadar) District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.259/2026 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District: Sarguja, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 125, 270, 287, 324(6), 326(g) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 9(b)(i)(b) of the Explosive Act, 1884. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.05.15 18:20:08 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant namely Pratul Pandey submitted a written complaint on 26/04/2026 alleging that the applicant runs a shop behind the house of the complainant which is owned by co-accused Mukesh Agarwal and runs by the applicant which consists of plastics materials. On 23/04/2026 while welding work was underway on the shop's roof, a spark ignited the fire, causing the shop and warehouse to catch fire, due to the fire the firecrackers ignited, and the flames entered the complainant's home, burning his AC, TV, bed, sofa, and other household items. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that initially, on 26.04.2026, offences under Sections 336, 268 and 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 336, 268 and 285 of the IPC), which are bailable in nature, were registered against the applicant. However, on the very next day, i.e.,27.04.2026, the Inspector General of Police, Sarguja Range, allegedly acting under the influence of the complainant and without conducting any proper inquiry, issued a show-cause notice to the concerned Investigating Officer and directed registration of offences under Sections 324(6) and 326(g) of the BNS, 2023, along with Section 9(b)(i)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, which are non-bailable offences, though the ingredients of the said offences are not attracted in the present case. A copy of the letter dated 27.04.2026 has been annexed as Annexure A-3. It is further submitted that the applicant’s shop is duly registered with the GST Department under the name and style of “Praveen Agency,” and therefore the allegation that the applicant was carrying on any unlawful activity is wholly baseless. A copy of the GST Registration Certificate along with relevant 3 documents has been filed as Annexure A-4. He further submits that the applicant does not run any firecracker shop nor does he store any inflammable or explosive substances. The applicant is engaged in the business of wholesale plastic materials and possesses a valid Udyam Registration Certificate issued under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises scheme by the Government of India. A copy of the said certificate is annexed as Annexure A-5. It is also submitted that the premises in question were being used by the applicant with the consent of Smt. Shalini Agrawal, wife of Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, who had permitted the applicant to run the wholesale business therein through a registered consent letter. A copy of the registered consent letter has been annexed as Annexure A-6. Learned counsel argues that the contents of the FIR themselves indicate that the incident was merely an accidental fire caused due to ignition and welding work, wherein plastic materials caught fire, and not firecrackers or explosives. Despite this, and without any proper inquiry, non-bailable offences were added at the instance of higher police officials allegedly influenced by the complainant. It is specifically contended that no offence under Section 9(b)(i)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 is made out against the applicant, as no explosive or inflammable substance was recovered from the shop or the place of occurrence. The addition of the aforesaid offences is therefore arbitrary and malicious. It is lastly submitted that there has been no loss of life or damage to any third-party property. In fact, the applicant himself suffered substantial loss as his own shop was burnt in the incident. It is also pointed out that an Istgasa was registered prior to lodging of the FIR, which demonstrates the bona fide conduct of the applicant. Therefore, he prays for anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, particularly the fact that the offences initially registered against the applicant were bailable in nature and the subsequent addition of non-bailable offences appears to have been made without any prima facie material regarding possession or storage of explosive substances, this Court finds that the incident, as reflected from the FIR itself, appears to be an accidental fire caused during welding work wherein plastic materials caught fire. Taking further into consideration that no loss of life or damage to any third-party property has been reported, the applicant himself suffered substantial loss in the incident, and the documents placed on record prima facie indicate that the applicant was carrying on a lawful wholesale plastic business, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Praveen Kumar Agrawal on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 5 acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaishali