1 2026:CGHC:24804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C(A) No.816 of 2026 Mukesh Agrawal S/o Gopal Das Agrawal Aged About 50 Years Occupation - Business R/o Mahulla Kudla Vasundhara City, (Agrasen Ward) P.S.- Ambikapur (Wrongly Mentioned As Sadar) Tehsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Ambikapur (Wrongly Mentioned As Sadar) District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya 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 – SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.06.19 11:39:34 +0530 2 Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 125, (336 IPC), 270 (268 IPC), 287 (285 IPC), 324(6) (440 IPC) and 326(g) (436 IPC) of BNS, 2023 as also under Section 9(b)(i)(b) of Explosive Act, 1984. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Pratul Pandey, lodged a written complaint on 26.04.2026 alleging that co-accused Praveen Agrawal was running a plastic goods shop in premises owned by the present Applicant, situated behind the complainant's house. It is alleged that on 23.04.2026, during welding work on the roof of the shop, sparks ignited a fire which spread to the shop and adjoining warehouse. The fire allegedly caused firecrackers stored therein to explode, resulting in the flames spreading to the complainant's house and damaging household articles including an AC, television, bed, sofa and other belongings. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR came to be registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the shop in question had been given to co-accused Praveen Agrawal, who is the Applicant's brother-in-law and the business being carried on therein, 3 along with the goods and materials stored in the premises, belonged exclusively to the said co-accused. It is further submitted that the co-accused was running the establishment under the name "Praveen Agency", duly registered under the GST laws and the Applicant had no role in its day-to-day affairs. It is further submitted that the fire had in fact occurred due to a short circuit, regarding which the co-accused himself informed the police, resulting in registration of an Istagasa on 23.04.2026, prior to the lodging of the FIR. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially registered only for bailable offences, however, subsequently graver non-bailable offences under the BNS and the Explosive Act were added without any proper inquiry. He furrther submits that no explosive or incriminating substance was recovered from the Applicant and there is no material to show that he was engaged in the business of firecrackers or storage of explosive substances. It is also submitted that the Applicant himself suffered substantial loss on account of the fire and there was no loss of human life in the incident. Learned counsel further submits that similarly placed co-accused Praveen Agrawal has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. (A) No.749/2026 and therefore, the present Applicant may 4 also be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. However, she does not dispute the fact that co-accused Praveen Agrawal has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 5. Considering the facts and material available in the case diary and the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the allegation against the present Applicant is primarily based on the fact that the premises where the incident occurred is owned by him, whereas the shop was admittedly being operated by co-accused Praveen Agrawal. It is also borne out from the record that the co- accused had informed the police immediately after the incident and that an Istagasa was registered prior to the lodging of the FIR. At this stage, no material has been brought on record to prima facie establish that the Applicant was engaged in the business of storing firecrackers or explosive substances or that he had any direct role in the occurrence of the incident. Considering the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the Applicant, the principle of parity and the fact that custodial interrogation of the Applicant does not appear necessary, this Court is of the considered 5 opinion that the Applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant – Mukesh Agrawal, on executing a personal bond with 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/s shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant/s shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant/s shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him/her/them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant/s and the surety shall submit a copy of his/her/their adhaar card along with a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant/s shall not involve himself/herself/themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Priya