Just over a month after three persons died in an explosion allegedly caused during the “illegal refilling of gas cylinders”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a Chandigarh departmental store owner.
Dismissing the petition filed by Vijay Kumar Poddar, Justice Parmod Goyal observed, “The offence was of serious nature resulting in explosion due to illegal activities of re-filling of cylinders causing damage to the property as well as injuries and death of three persons namely Munna, Mahesh and Gopi, who were residing in adjoining room in the same building."
Justice Goyal also took note of the fact that as 18 cylinders and six nozzles were recovered from the spot –– the petitioner’s room. The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on May 26 under Sections 326(g), 124(1) and 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Sector 34 south police station in Chandigarh.
Appearing before Justice Goyal’s Bench, the petitioner’s counsel contended that he was running a departmental store and was himself a victim of the unfortunate occurrence in which he sustained serious burn injuries despite being shown as an accused. The counsel submitted that he was initially taken to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, and was presently undergoing treatment at a Zirakpur hospital.
It was further argued on his behalf that he was incapable of appending his signatures because of the injuries and had been falsely implicated. He was neither involved in the incident, nor had any concern with the case.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the occurrence took place while the petitioner was illegally refilling gas cylinders in a room in his possession. It was further submitted that a large number of cylinders were recovered from the room. Considering the seriousness and nature of the offence, his custodial interrogation was necessary.
After considering the rival submissions, Justice Goyal held that there was no reason to grant the concession of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. “On consideration, I find no reasons for grant of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case," the court observed before referring to the seriousness of the offence and the recoveries allegedly made from the petitioner’s room.
Concluding that the petition lacked merit, the High Court said: “In view of above, there is no merit in present petition, hence same is dismissed."
