The Saket Court has granted regular bail to Keshar Negi, the head chef arrested in connection with the Flourish Stay Hotel fire in Malviya Nagar that killed 23 persons and injured 24 others, observing that merely performing routine kitchen duties cannot, by itself, make a salaried chef criminally liable for the tragedy.
Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal held that while the incident was one of “extreme gravity”, the seriousness of the offence alone could not justify continued incarceration. The Court said the prosecution had failed to demonstrate any compelling necessity for Negi’s continued custody, particularly when the precise cause of the fire remained undetermined and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was still awaited.
The prosecution had alleged that Negi, who was the head chef, had switched on the electric oil fryer and other kitchen appliances shortly before the fire broke out. It argued that he was responsible for operating the kitchen equipment and had previously been cautioned to exercise due care. However, the State itself acknowledged that the exact origin and cause of the fire had not yet been conclusively established through scientific examination.
Granting bail, the Court noted that the applicant’s role had to be assessed in the context of his employment and not merely on the basis of his presence in the kitchen.
“
“Merely because the applicant was required, in the ordinary course of his employment, to operate kitchen appliances such as the electric oil fryer, gas stoves and other cooking equipment, it cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that he was criminally negligent or legally responsible for the unfortunate incident. Operating kitchen appliances was an integral part of his employment as a chef and was the very duty for which he had been engaged. Performance of those routine duties cannot, without more, be treated as constituting culpable negligence or criminal liability.”
The Court further observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that Negi was responsible for the hotel’s structural design, LPG installation, fire safety systems, electrical wiring, statutory licences, emergency exits or other safety infrastructure, which prima facie fell within the domain of the owners and management. It held that, at this stage, merely because he was present in the kitchen and performing his assigned duties could not be equated with criminal negligence.
The Court also rejected the prosecution’s contention that continued custody was necessary because the investigation was pending. It noted that scientific determination of the fire’s cause would be carried out by independent expert agencies and did not require the applicant’s continued detention. The prosecution had also failed to place any specific material indicating that Negi had attempted to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Accordingly, the Court directed that Negi be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including joining the investigation whenever required, refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without prior permission of the trial court.
