The court established that custodial interrogation was unnecessary due to the absence of incriminating evidence against the applicants and their clean records.

O R D E R

These two bail applications are connected and hence they are disposed of by a common order. They are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant in B.A.No. 277 of 2026 is accused No.3 and the applicant in B.A.No.167 of 2026 is accused No.4 in Crime No. 898 of 2025 of Walayar Police Station, Palakkad District. 3. The offences alleged in both cases are punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 (Amendment 2013 & 2014).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 15.11.2025 at

14.30 hours, during patrol duty, police found five tipper lorries parked near a quarry in the coconut grove of one Chinnaswamy in Poolampara. Inside the quarry, two tractors and three excavators were operating. On inspecting the adjacent shed, officers recovered 3,503 gelatin sticks, 1,265 detonators, a battery, wire and a plastic sack used for operating them. As these explosive substances were stored illegally without any licence or permit, the accused are alleged to have knowingly kept them in their possession for use in the quarry and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Geo Paul and Sri.T.V.George, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The crime was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 only. The accused No.4 was subsequently arrayed as an accused on the ground that he is the owner of the property where the quarry functioned. The accused No.4 admits that he is the owner of the property. However, Annexure A2 in B.A.No.167 of 2026 would show that he leased out the property for the purpose of quarrying to the accused No.1. The only material collected during the investigation conducted so far against the accused No.3 is the statement of the accused No.1 that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of the quarry. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were already granted regular bail. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations made against the applicants, their custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find these to be appropriate cases to grant pre-

arrest bail to the applicants.

In the result, these applications are allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The applicants shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded. (iii) The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicants shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicants shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person,