A former deputy of the Yaroslavl Regional Duma, Dmitry Sokolov, appealed a court decision that ordered his arrest in connection with a fire at a central city restaurant. The appeal was reported by TASS, through Olga Kozlova, the press secretary of the Yaroslavl regional court.
The Kirovsky District Court is reviewing the appeal against the arrest order. The court had previously held Sokolov in custody until December 30, pending further investigation into the case.
Investigators have charged Sokolov under Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which covers intentional damage or destruction of another person’s property by arson. They also point to Part 3 of Article 30, clause a, e, Section 2, and Article 105, which relates to attempted murder of two or more people. The defendant has acknowledged setting the fire but disputes the allegation of attempted murder.
According to Sokolov’s defense, the arson occurred amid a family quarrel with the restaurant’s management. They argue that the deputy was severely intoxicated at the time, a state that the defense suggests contributed to the incident.
A law enforcement source in Yaroslavl reported in October that the former MP is suspected of involvement in the restaurant blaze in the city center. The same source indicated that the authorities are pursuing a full evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the incident and the roles of those present.
Emergency responders faced a large blaze that endangered nearby structures before crews gained control. There were no immediate reports of casualties, but the fire caused significant property damage and disrupted operations in the area while the investigation continued.
As the case moves through the judicial process, prosecutors are expected to present additional evidence and witness testimony to establish the factual timeline of events, assess the intent behind the actions, and determine the appropriate charges. The defense, for its part, is anticipated to challenge the strength of the prosecution’s claims and offer a narrative intended to contextualize the events within the broader personal and professional circumstances surrounding the former deputy.
Observers note that the outcome of this appeal could influence public perception of political figures once associated with regional governance and their accountability in situations involving violent crime. The case illustrates how authorities navigate complex allegations that mix criminal conduct with political history, family dynamics, and issues of personal intoxication.
Legal experts emphasize that the appellate process will closely examine whether the detention measures align with evidentiary standards and procedural safeguards, ensuring that constitutional rights are balanced with the need to secure the scene, preserve evidence, and protect public safety. The proceedings will also explore the proportionality of the remand and whether alternative conditions could adequately mitigate flight risk while allowing due process.
In this evolving narrative, the court will weigh the components of intent, opportunity, and the potential for harm to others. The outcome will hinge on the compatibility of the presented evidence with the statutory definitions of arson and attempted murder, as well as the credibility and clarity of witness testimonies and expert analyses.