Delhi court grants bail to cook in Hauz Rani B&B fire case

A Delhi court on Monday granted bail to 65-year-old Keshar Negi, the cook employed at the Hauz Rani bed-and-breakfast facility that was gutted in a fire last month, killing 23 people

A Delhi court on Monday granted bail to 65-year-old Keshar Negi, the cook employed at the Hauz Rani bed-and-breakfast facility that was gutted in a fire last month, killing 23 people.

The June 3 blaze at the Flourish Stay B&B, in which 23 people, including 13 foreign nationals, died. (RAJ K RAJ /HT PHOTO)

Additional sessions judge Samar Vishal of the Saket courts held that Negi could not be held criminally liable merely for performing his routine duties in the kitchen.

“The mere fact that the applicant was required, in the ordinary course of his employment, to operate kitchen appliances... cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that he was criminally negligent or legally responsible for the unfortunate incident,” the court said, adding that operating such equipment was an integral part of his job as a chef and, without anything more, could not amount to culpable negligence.

Negi, a resident of Dilshad Garden in Shahdara, was arrested days after the June 3 blaze at the Flourish Stay B&B, in which 23 people, including 13 foreign nationals, died.

The facility’s owner, Bajaj, and Jay Mishra, in whose name the B&B licence was issued, remain in judicial custody. A magistrate had denied Negi bail last month, citing the gravity of the allegations, following which he approached the sessions court.

Opposing the plea, additional public prosecutor Arun Kumar Singh argued that Negi was not merely a cook but was responsible for operating the kitchen appliances and had previously been cautioned to exercise care while handling them. The prosecution also relied on his disclosure statement, in which he allegedly admitted switching on the electric oil fryer and other kitchen appliances as part of the morning routine before noticing a fire near the fryer.

Police said the LPG hose pipe caught fire during the incident, causing a gas leak that led to the rapid spread of the blaze. However, they maintained that the exact cause of the fire could not yet be determined as forensic reports were still awaited.

Appearing for Negi, senior advocate Deepak Prakash and advocate Sriram Parakkat argued that he was being falsely implicated as he was only a salaried chef with no ownership, managerial or supervisory role at the establishment.

Accepting the contention at this stage, the court observed that the prosecution had placed no material on record to show that Negi was responsible for the building’s structural design or for the installation or maintenance of its LPG pipeline or electrical systems. Those responsibilities, it said, prima facie lay with the owner and management, not a salaried chef.

The court further noted that since the forensic report establishing the scientific cause of the fire was still awaited, it would not be appropriate to attribute criminal liability to Negi merely because he was performing his routine duties in the kitchen when the fire broke out.