Delhi Saket court has granted regular bail to Keshar Negi, the Head Chef arrested in connection with the devastating Flourish Stay Hotel fire in Malviya Nagar that claimed 23 lives and left 24 others injured, holding that the mere performance of routine kitchen duties cannot, by itself, amount to criminal negligence.
The order was passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-02, South District, Saket Courts, in a bail application.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
Background
According to the prosecution, the fire broke out on June 3, 2026, at Flourish Stay Hotel, a bed-and-breakfast establishment in Malviya Nagar. The incident resulted in one of Delhi’s deadliest hotel fire tragedies, killing 23 persons and causing grievous burn and smoke inhalation injuries to 24 others.
Negi, who has remained in judicial custody since June 6, 2026, sought regular bail under Section 483(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Defence: Chef Was a Salaried Employee, Not Responsible for Safety Compliance
Appearing for the applicant, the Counsel for the Applicant argued that Negi was merely a salaried Head Chef with no ownership, managerial or supervisory authority over the hotel.
It was contended that responsibilities relating to fire safety permissions, LPG installation, emergency exits, electrical systems, sprinklers, fire extinguishers and statutory licences rested entirely with the owners and management of the establishment.
The defence further submitted that neither the FIR nor the arrest memo attributed any specific negligent act or omission to Negi that could establish criminal liability. It also argued that the exact cause of the fire remains scientifically undetermined and that continued custody served no investigative purpose.
Reliance was placed on decisions of the Supreme Court, including Sushil Ansal v. State (through CBI), Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor to argue that bail should ordinarily be granted unless compelling circumstances justify continued detention.
Prosecution Opposes Bail
The State opposed the application, emphasizing the exceptional gravity of the tragedy and submitting that the investigation remained at a crucial stage.
According to the prosecution, Negi was not merely a cook but the Head Chef responsible for operating and supervising various kitchen appliances, including the electric oil fryer, LPG system, gas stoves, electric tandoors and pizza ovens.
The prosecution relied upon the statement of hotel receptionist Rupesh Kumar, who claimed that Negi had switched on several kitchen appliances on the morning of the incident before the fire was noticed near the electric oil fryer.
The State also informed the court that although reports from the Delhi Fire Services and the Electrical Inspector had been received, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which would determine the precise cause and sequence of the fire, was still awaited.
Court: Routine Employment Cannot Automatically Attract Criminal Liability
After examining the material on record, the court observed that although the tragedy was of extreme seriousness, the gravity of the offence alone could not be the sole ground for denying bail.
The court noted that Negi’s role as Head Chef required him to operate kitchen appliances in the ordinary course of his employment and held that merely performing those assigned duties could not automatically establish criminal negligence.
It further observed that there was no material to show that the applicant had any responsibility concerning the building’s structural safety, LPG installation, electrical wiring, fire safety mechanisms, statutory licences or emergency infrastructure, which prima facie fell within the domain of the owners and management.
The court also took note of the prosecution’s own stand that the exact origin and cause of the fire had not yet been scientifically determined because the FSL report was still pending.
In these circumstances, the court held that it would not be appropriate at the bail stage to attribute criminal culpability to the applicant solely because he was present in the kitchen and performing his routine duties when the incident occurred.
No Material Showing Witness Tampering
Rejecting the prosecution’s apprehension regarding possible interference with the investigation, the court observed that no specific material had been placed on record to indicate that Negi had attempted to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The court also considered his clean antecedents, professional record and status as a salaried employee while concluding that continued custodial detention was not justified.
Bail Granted With Conditions
Allowing the application, the court directed that Negi be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount.
The court clarified that its observations were confined solely to deciding the bail application and would not influence the merits of the criminal trial.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
