Bail granted considering detention period, investigation stage, and parity despite unlawful explosive possession.

ORDER

This application seeking regular bail has been filed by the first accused in Crime No. 250/2026 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on 01.03.2026 at about 1:10 p.m., the first and second accused were found in unlawful possession of highly explosive substances, namely gelatin sticks, detonators, fuse wires, and gunpowder, without any licence or valid government authorisation, in the property of one Anees at Maringam in Angadicode. It is further alleged that the accused drilled holes into rock inside a well situated in the said property using a compressor and filled the holes with explosives with the intention of carrying out an unauthorised blast, thereby endangering human life and property. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the Sri. Vipin Narayanan, learned Public Prosecutor, also perused the records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the first accused, is innocent of the allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the explosive substances allegedly seized in this case. It is further contended that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted in toto, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had any criminal intention to endanger human life or property, particularly when it is evident from the allegations that the explosives were intended for blasting rocks for the purpose of digging a well. The learned counsel also submitted that the second accused, who faces similar allegations, has already been granted bail, and on the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, highlighting the serious nature of the allegations.

6. The allegation that the petitioner, along with the second accused, was in possession of explosive substances in violation of the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act cannot be taken lightly. At the same time, it is discernible from the prosecution case itself that the explosives were allegedly intended for blasting rocks in connection with well-digging. However, such a purpose cannot justify the unlawful possession and proposed use of explosive substances without authorisation.

7. It is evident from the records that the petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the second accused, who faces similar allegations, has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Though bail was earlier declined to the petitioner by the Sessions Court taking note of his criminal antecedents, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period. The investigation appears to have progressed substantially and is now at the verge of completion. If the prosecution apprehends the possibility of the petitioner engaging in similar activities, it is open to the authorities to take recourse to appropriate preventive measures in accordance with law. Having regard to the period of detention already undergone and the present stage of the investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. for a perio