Bail granted to accused lacking direct possession evidence and with near-complete investigation under explosives laws.

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.7 in Crime No.312/2025 of Erattupettah Police Station, Kottayam District. The offences alleged are punishable underSection 288read withSection 3(5) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023and Sections 4 and 5 of theExplosive Substances Act, 1908.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant along with the other accused, in furtherance of their common intention to illegally possess explosive substances like detonators, fuses etc., stocked 18,999 detonators, 2,604 gelatin sticks, 3,350 safety fuses and one air gun in the shop rooms and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. P.E. Sajal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 20.2.2026. The accused No.1 was found in possession of the explosives in the shop owned by the accused No.2 without any valid license. It is alleged that the accused Nos. 4 to 6 supplied the explosives to the accused Nos. 1 and 2. No explosives were seized from the possession of the applicant. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was present near the go-down where the explosives were stored. The investigation is almost over. The recovery has been effected. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.