Court finds insufficient direct evidence against tenant accused of negligence in pet shop fire that claimed 15 lives; emphasizes owner's failure to implement safety measures as primary cause
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has granted bail to Suresh Kumar Sahu, a tenant accused of negligence in connection with a devastating fire incident that claimed 15 lives and injured 9 others at House No. 2813, Sector-D, Aliganj, Lucknow, on July 22, 2024.
Justice Manish Kumar, while disposing of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6232 of 2026, held that the tenant had made out a prima facie case for bail, observing that the building owner, rather than the tenant, bore primary responsibility for the tragedy due to gross violations of fire safety norms.
The Incident and Charges
The fire broke out in a pet shop located in a four-storied building (including basement) where each floor was rented to different tenants for commercial activities. The incident resulted in 15 deaths and 9 injuries. The applicant, Suresh Kumar Sahu, was arrested on June 23, 2026, and has been in custody since then. He is accused under Sections 105, 110, 125, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Key Arguments
The prosecution alleged that the applicant had locked the channel gate of his rented portion on the third floor, which allegedly could have provided an alternative escape route and saved additional lives. However, the High Court found this allegation to be substantially weakened by several factors.
Learned counsel for the applicant emphasized that:
- The applicant is merely a tenant, not the building owner
- His tenanted portion was locked on the date of the incident, proving he was not present
- The portion was taken for residential purposes, not commercial activities
- The allegation that an unlocked gate could have saved lives was highly speculative
The learned Additional Government Advocate, while opposing bail, fairly conceded that no concrete evidence or allegation had been found against the applicant till the date of the hearing, and that investigations were still ongoing.
Court's Analysis and Findings
Justice Manish Kumar conducted a meticulous examination of the facts and identified six critical grounds for granting bail:
First, the FIR itself revealed that the building owner had flagrantly violated safety norms by failing to implement requisite precautions and emergency measures.
Second, the building had only one exit, a fundamental violation of fire safety standards that the owner should have rectified.
Third, the applicant's presence at the spot on the day of the incident was ruled out since his channel gate was locked. The Court observed that it was unreasonable to expect a tenant to anticipate that a fire might break out and that locking his personal gate might result in casualties.
Fourth, examination of photographs submitted before the Court revealed that the third floor ended at the main door of the applicant's tenanted portion. Significantly, the stairs were not extending to the roof from outside his portion. The applicant himself had fixed a wooden ladder to provide roof access from within his tenanted space.
Fifth, the Court found that it was the landowner who had constructed a wall at the third floor creating a dead end, and the landlord had failed to provide any common passage for access to the third floor roof—a critical safety oversight that amplified the tragedy.
Sixth, the applicant possessed no criminal history, and had already spent considerable time in custody (from June 23, 2026, to the date of the judgment).
Legal Principles Applied
The High Court applied the well-established principle that for bail to be refused in serious offenses, there must be a prima facie case of guilt with substantial evidence. Here, the Court found the absence of direct evidence against the tenant concerning his alleged negligence.
The judgment underscores a crucial distinction in criminal liability: mere presence or ownership of property carries different degrees of responsibility compared to actual participation or omission directly causing harm. The Court's reasoning reflects the principle that criminal negligence requires a direct causal connection between the accused's act or omission and the resultant harm.
Bail Conditions
The High Court granted bail on the following conditions:
1. The applicant must not tamper with evidence during trial
2. He must not pressurize or intimidate prosecution witnesses
3. He must not commit any offense
4. He shall remain present before the trial court on each scheduled date, either personally or through counsel
The Court cautioned that breach of these conditions would constitute an abuse of bail liberty, allowing the trial court to take appropriate action under law.
Significance
This judgment carries significant implications for property owners and tenants involved in tragic incidents. It establishes that while building owners bear a heightened duty to ensure structural safety and compliance with fire safety regulations, tenants cannot be held criminally liable for unforeseen emergencies unless their direct actions or omissions demonstrably contributed to the harm.
The High Court also clarified that the observations made in the bail order would have no bearing on the merits of the case and would not influence the trial court's final verdict on guilt or innocence.
Bottom Line:
Bail granted to a tenant accused of negligence in a fire incident causing deaths and injuries, on the grounds that he was not the owner of the building and was not present at the time of the incident.
Statutory Provision(s):
Section 105 BNS 2023, Section 110 BNS 2023, Section 304 IPC
Suresh Kumar Sahu v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975485
