Authorities must weigh ongoing investigations against the rights of the accused when considering bail applications involving serious allegations.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.470 of 2025 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences punishable under Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section s 4 (b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 .

3. According to the prosecution, on 22.07.2025, the accused was found operating an illegal quarry with explosives without any licence and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and petitioner is totally innocent. It was also submitted that petitioner is not the owner of the property and that the Investigating OfÏcer has arrayed him as the accused without any material evidence and without conducting a proper investigation. It was also submitted that petitioner was allegedly identified as the person who carried out the explosion, without any credible basis. It was further submitted that the materials used in the explosion have been recovered from the said property and, therefore, the offences under Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act are not even attracted and hence, petitioner ought to be granted anticipatory bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that, since the allegations are serious and the petitioner has been identified as the person who had conducted the explosion, custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. On a perusal of the FIR and on an appreciation of the contentions raised, it is noticed that petitioner is alleged to have conducted illegal quarrying using explosives. The statement that led to the registration of the FIR indicates that used explosive shells were found in the property. Though there are no materials for the time being to connect the petitioner with the aforesaid crime, since the investigation is going on, this Court is of the view that granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage will prejudice the investigation, especially in the light of the serious allegations. Prima facie, on a reading of the FIR, it is evident that if explosions were carried out by the petitioner, certainly the offence under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act will be attracted, even if what was recovered from the property were only used shells of explosives. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where petitioner can be protected with an order of anticipatory bail.

8. However, if in case petitioner surrenders before the Investigating OfÏcer on 19.08.2025 and if, after interrogation, the Investigating OfÏcer arrests the petitioner, then, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate without any undue delay and if any bail application is filed, the same shall be considered preferably on the same day itself.

This bail application is dismissed with the above observations.