Burabay District Court has announced the verdict for three defendants in the case of the explosion and fire at the "Plov Centre" café in Shchuchinsk. The three defendants were sentenced to prison terms of 6 to 7 years.
WHAT IS KNOWN
According to the press service of the Akmola Regional Courts, Judge Assel Ilyasova found the café's tenant guilty under Article 292, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Violation of fire safety requirements") and sentenced him to 7 years' imprisonment. He was also banned for 3 years from engaging in any activity related to public catering.
The director of the autogas filling station (AGFS) received 7 years' imprisonment under Article 306, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Provision of services that do not meet the safety requirements for the life or health of consumers").
The gas cylinder deliveryman was sentenced by the court to 6 years' imprisonment under the same article.
WHAT OTHER DECISIONS THE COURT MADE
The court partially satisfied the civil claims of 16 victims for compensation of moral damages.
In addition, the court issued a special ruling addressed to the akim (governor) of the Akmola Region. The court pointed to identified shortcomings in the organisation of preventive work and inter-agency cooperation in ensuring fire safety at public catering facilities.
The sentence has not yet entered into legal force.
WHAT VIOLATIONS THE COURT ESTABLISHED
The court stated that the café manager allowed the use of gas cylinders at the public catering facility, their storage in close proximity to heating radiators, and also failed to provide training for employees and persons responsible for the operation of gas equipment.
The court also established that the gas deliveryman had no right to engage in the sale and delivery of gas. On 25 February 2026, he delivered two gas cylinders to the café, one of which subsequently exploded. According to the court, that cylinder had been filled beyond the permissible limit.
Regarding the AGFS director, the court noted the systematic sale of gas into domestic cylinders in the absence of the necessary documentation, equipment, measuring instruments for controlling cylinder filling, trained personnel, and other mandatory conditions.
WHAT THE DEFENDANTS SAID BEFORE THE SENTENCE
In his final statement, the café's tenant stated that he had failed to exercise proper control over the establishment's operation and admitted to violating fire safety requirements. He also asked the victims for forgiveness, reports MIA "Kazinform".
The AGFS director, by contrast, asked the court to deliver an acquittal. He claimed that, in his opinion, the filling of domestic gas cylinders on 25 February bore no causal connection to the fire that occurred on 26 February. The gas deliveryman asked the court to give a fair and lawful assessment of what had happened.
CONTEXT
It will be recalled that on the night of 26-27 February, an explosion of a gas-air mixture occurred in Shchuchinsk at a single-storey café attached to a five-storey residential building.
Immediately after the incident, 7 people died — some at the scene, others succumbed in the first hours after the explosion. Later, the number of victims grew: several injured people died in hospitals in subsequent days and weeks.
According to the latest data, the total number of dead reached at least 12, with reports later indicating an increase to 13.
A criminal case was opened regarding the fire under Article 292, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Violation of fire safety requirements"). On 3 March, law enforcement agencies detained the owner of the establishment.
In April, two more suspects were detained — the AGFS director and the gas cylinder deliveryman.
Earlier during the trial, the café's tenant acknowledged that he had insufficiently controlled the establishment's operations and had violated fire safety requirements. The AGFS director, for his part, stated that he had forbidden employees from filling domestic gas cylinders, yet admitted to insufficient oversight in enforcing that prohibition.
At the same time, some victims stated in court that they had no complaints against the gas cylinder deliveryman, while other parties to the proceedings filed civil claims.
