New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Monday granted bail to Kesar Negi, the head cook working at the Malviya Nagar bed and breakfast that caught fire in early June, leaving 23 people dead.
The Saket Court order said, “…merely because the applicant (Negi) was present in the kitchen and was performing his assigned duties cannot be equated with criminal negligence or with responsibility for the safety of the entire hotel.”
Negi, through his counsel contended that he has been “falsely implicated and was merely a salaried chef employed at the establishment, having no ownership, managerial or supervisory role in its functioning”.
His counsel further submitted that immediately after noticing the fire, Negi switched off the electrical supply and informed the manager, Rupesh, acting prudently rather than negligently, and even helped in evacuating the guests.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed Negi’s bail application on the ground that the case concerns an unprecedented fire tragedy. “The incident has resulted in an enormous loss of human life and has serious ramifications for public safety,” he submitted.
On 3 June, a massive fire broke out at Hotel Flourish Stays in Malviya Nagar. Those killed in the fire included Indian nationals, as well as people from Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Iraq, Congo, Mozambique and Liberia.
Negi, 65, has been in judicial custody since 6 June. He was arrested under BNS sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 326(g) (mischief by injury, inundation, fire or explosive substance), 324(5) (whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of one lakh rupees or upward), 125 (act endangering life or personal safety of others), and 287 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter).
According to police sources, preliminary findings indicated that the cook’s actions may have contributed to the fire’s outbreak.
The Delhi Police had arrested B&B owner Lovkesh Bajaj, Negi, who was head chef of Snack & Bites, a restaurant in same building, and Jay Mishra, in whose name the B&B licence had been issued and who was working as the hotel’s accountant. All three accused are in judicial custody.
Negi submits no carelessness on his part
Negi’s principal submission was that the FIR and the arrest memo do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him. According to him, neither document attributes any specific negligent act or omission to him, nor does it allege any intention, knowledge or carelessness on his part. Through his counsel, Negi argued that in the absence of any direct or indirect allegation connecting him with the cause of the fire, no prima facie case was made out against him.
“It has further been argued that the alleged deficiencies forming the basis of the prosecution case, namely the absence of fire safety licences and permissions, defective LPG installations, inadequate fire safety equipment, lack of emergency exits, sprinklers and fire extinguishers, were matters entirely within the responsibility of the owners and management of the BnB,” the submission said.
His counsel also challenged the prosecution version regarding the cause of the fire. “While the arrest memo attributes the rapid spread of the fire to the melting of rubber LPG pipes, it is argued that no explanation has been given as to why those pipes melted. According to the applicant, the fire was caused by an electrical short circuit, which subsequently melted the LPG pipes.”
Negi ‘helped in evacuating guests’
According to the prosecution, the investigation had revealed that Negi, as head chef, was responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the kitchen. He was operating and supervising the electric oil fryer, LPG system, gas stoves, electric tandoors, pizza ovens and other kitchen appliances. It relied on the statement of Rupesh Kumar, the hotel receptionist, recorded during the investigation.
Kumar stated that on the morning of 3 June, at around 8 am, Negi was in the kitchen preparing breakfast and had switched on various kitchen appliances, including the electric oil fryer.
At about 8.35 am, after being informed by a housekeeping employee about a fire, Negi reached the kitchen and noticed a substantial fire near the electric oil fryer, Kumar said in his statement. Despite attempts to put out the flames with fire extinguishers and an additional extinguisher brought from a neighbouring hotel, the blaze spread rapidly. Negi then evacuated guests, informed the Fire Control Room, ambulance services and the hotel owner, and himself sustained injuries during the rescue operation.
This is all part of Kumar’s statement recorded before a magistrate.
The State clarified that the exact origin, cause and manner of spread of the fire are yet to be conclusively determined through scientific examination, and the final report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is still awaited.
The court acknowledged that along with the bail application, several certificates issued by Negi’s previous employers have been placed on record, showing that he had worked at reputed establishments. In all these certificates, the applicant has been described as hardworking, sincere, cooperative, attentive and possessing good moral character.
What the court said
“There can be no dispute that the incident in question is one of extreme gravity. A large number of innocent persons lost their lives while several others suffered grievous injuries. The magnitude of the tragedy naturally requires a thorough and fair investigation,” Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal said in the detailed court order.
He added: “However, the seriousness of the offence, by itself, cannot be the sole ground to deny bail. The Court is equally required to examine the specific role attributed to the applicant and whether his continued detention is necessary for the purposes of investigation or trial.”
ASJ Vishal further said that the prosecution itself has arrested not only Negi, but also the owner of the hotel and the person in whose name the B&B licence had been issued.
“The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the applicant was working as head chef of the establishment and was entrusted with the day-to-day functioning of 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,” the court observed.
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, said the court.
“Equally significant is the fact that there is no material placed before this Court to show that the applicant had any responsibility whatsoever with respect to the structural design of the building, installation or maintenance of the LPG system, fire safety mechanisms, electrical wiring, procurement of statutory licences, obtaining fire safety clearances, installation of emergency exits, sprinklers, fire alarms or any other safety infrastructure,” observed the ADJ.
The court noted that those matters prima facie fall within the domain of the owner and the management of the establishment and not that of a salaried chef employed to prepare food in the kitchen. “At this stage, therefore, merely because the applicant was present in the kitchen and was performing his assigned duties cannot be equated with criminal negligence or with responsibility for the safety of the entire hotel.”
“…….having regard to the applicant’s age, antecedents, status as a salaried employee and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reasonable basis to conclude that his release on bail would prejudice the investigation or the administration of justice,” the judge noted in the order.
Granting Negi bail, he said: “Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate any compelling necessity for the continued custodial detention of the applicant. The interests of justice can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions while enlarging him on bail.”
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)