Patna High Court
Neeraj GandhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
In the absence of any material evidence establishing actus reus or mens rea against the petitioner, anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Neeraj Gandhi, was implicated in an FIR under Section 304 IPC for a fire that broke out at Pal Hotel, resulting in six deaths. He contended that he was not present at the scene, that the fire was caused by the chef’s negligence, and that the FIR exaggerated the allegations. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing lack of actus reus and mens rea, and offered to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, but the court considered the submissions and the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the fire. Relying on Section 482(2) of the CrPC, the court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions and possible cancellation if the petitioner fails to cooperate. The order directed the trial court to enforce the bail conditions and to inform the police station.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 304 IPC for a hotel fire.
- Whether the petitioner can be said to have committed actus reus or mens rea in relation to the fire incident.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 304 IPC
- fire safety
- criminal negligence
- actus reus
- mens rea
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48962 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2024 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna
======================================================
Neeraj Gandhi SON OF Ravindra Kumar Gandhi Resident of Flat No. 802,
Pushpanjali Venkatesh Apartment, Budh Marg, P.S. -Kotwali, Town and
District -Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
13 06-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 304 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that he received a secret information about a sudden fire that
engulfed Pal Hotel on 25.04.2024, accordingly the informant
reached the spot for verification and saw that Pal Hotel and
Amrit Hotel adjacent to Pal Hotel were engulfed in fire,
thereafter fire brigade along with Kotwali police station officials
also reached and eventually the fire was brought under control
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48962 of 2024(13) dt.06-02-2026
2/5
within 2-3 hours, later NDRF and SDRF also arrived, it is next
alleged that almost 30 people who were stuck in the room of
hotel were brought out safely with the help of fire brigade, few
people received burn injuries while being rescued however, six
people died on account of injury suffered by fire, it is next
alleged that both hotel had a very narrow passage for entry
without any alternative passage, it is further alleged that rules
and regulations related to fire safety and health have been
ignored on account of which when the fire broke out none of the
guests could escape as there was absence of alternative passage,
it is also alleged that reason for fire was that the kitchen and
entry gate of Pal Hotel are adjacent to each other, where
refrigerator and AC outlets are located, the chef was cooking
and and due to his negligent act, the kitchen caught fire which
could not be controlled as there was no arrangement to
extinguish the fire.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant being owner of Pal Hotel. It is also submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that petitioner was not present at the place of
occurrence when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48962 of 2024(13) dt.06-02-2026
3/5
It is next submitted that though in the FIR it is alleged that six
persons died, but none of the guests residing in Pal Hotel died, it
is also submitted that FIR itself suggests that 30 guests were
evacuated, which amply demonstrates that there was space
based on which the fire brigade could save innocent lives. It is
further submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that
petitioner deliberately committed the occurrence, but then the
hotel was caught in the spate of fire which occurred on account
of bona fide inadvertence committed by the chefs cooking the
food. It is also submitted that the hotel, in question, is existing at
the place of occurrence for the last more than 30-40 years, but
then no such occurrence ever took place nor any objection was
ever raised by any of the authorities with regard to construction
of the hotel, but since an occurrence took place, as such, the FIR
came to be instituted with an exaggerated allegation. It is also
submitted that two of the employees of the petitioner’s hotel
died, but then they have been compensated and the petitioner
bore the expenses of the injured who were treated in hospital. It
is further submitted that for constituting a criminal offence, both
actus rea and mens rea is required, but then in the instant case
neither actus rea nor mens rea can be imputed against the
petitioner, since he was not present at the place of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48962 of 2024(13) dt.06-02-2026
4/5
and the hotel was running for the last so many years catering to
the customers and no such occurrence ever took place. It is also
submitted that no hotel owner would deliberately indulge in an
act which shall bring disrepute to the business itself. It is further
submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate
in the investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Kotwali
P.S. Case No. 276 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite
giving assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48962 of 2024(13) dt.06-02-2026
5/5
investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…