IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 CRM-M-55404-2025 Decided on :09.10.2025 Ved Parkash . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.559 dated 2809.2024, under Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 105, 125(2), 324(4) of BNS, registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is engaged in the business of selling firecrackers and holds a valid licence (Annexure P-2) in that regard. It is submitted that the petitioner was authorized to store firecrackers at his residence in view of the approaching festival of Diwali. However, a fire unfortunately broke out at the residence, resulting in the death of three individuals due to burn injuries.

3. Counsel further submits that petitioner is 59 years old and has been engaged in this line of business for several decades, during which no such incident has ever occurred, owing to the precautions regularly taken by him in compliance with the terms and conditions of the licence (Annexure P-2). It is argued that it is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court whether the incident resulting in the death of the three persons was due to the petitioner’s negligence or that of someone else present in the house at the time.

It is further submitted that out of total of 33 prosecution witnesses, ten are material witnesses. Of these ten, eight have already been examined and have turned hostile.

4. By referring to order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-19491-2025, counsel submits that the petitioner’s son, Karan,who is also an accused in the case, has already been granted bail.

5. Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate, further submits that if ultimately the prosecution fails to prove the charges, the incident would, at most, be classified as an accident, which may at best attract prosecution under Section 304-A IPC (corresponding to Section 106(1)

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

Counsel further argues that since majority of the material witnesses have already turned hostile, and that petitioner is a licensed and authorized dealer of the firecrackers, his continued incarceration serves no purpose. It is submitted that approximately 22–23 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Accordingly, petitioner prays for the grant of regular bail.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are of a serious and grave nature, involving the loss of three human lives due to a fire that allegedly originated from the negligent handling and storage of explosive materials. It is contended that the petitioner was the sole person responsible for the safe storage of firecrackers at the premises, being a licensed dealer, and therefore owed a higher duty of care. His failure to adhere to safety norms, despite being in the business for decades, cannot be viewed lightly. Learned State Counsel further argues that the investigation is still ongoing and approximately 22–23 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined. Granting bail at this stage may influence the trial and affect the course of justice. Hence, considering the seriousness of the offence and the stage of trial, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

8. In view of the above submissions and considering that petitioner is a licensed dealer with no previous adverse record, majority of material witnesses have already turned hostile, and trial is still underway with many witnesses