ORDER

Heard.

Both these criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”) are preferred against the order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dewas in Bail Application Nos. 1074/2026 and 1079/2026, whereby the applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail on behalf of the appellants, namely Mukesh Vij and Anil Malviya respectively, in connection with FIR/Crime No.176/2026 registered at Police Station Tonkkhurd, District Dewas (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 5 and 9(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3(1)(h) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Sections 79 and 87 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were rejected. The appellants – Anil and Mukesh Vij are in custody since 17.05.2026 and 19.05.2026 respectively.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 14.05.2026 at about 11:00 A.M., a massive explosion occurred at an illegal fireworks factory in Village Tokkala, P.S. Tonkkhurd, District Dewas. About 70–75 labourers were filling fireworks with gunpowder and chemicals inside tin sheds. 12 workers died and 19 were seriously injured. Investigation revealed that the unit was being run illegally, without proper fire safety, without required NOCs, and in violation of licence conditions, with large quantities of explosives and chemicals stored far beyond permissible limits. Appellant Mukesh Vij was not a distant outsider. Through his firms Vij Technology & Consultants and S.K. Enterprises, he acted as the main financial controller and partner. Crores of rupees moved between his firms and appellant Anil Malviya (the ostensible operator). His firms also supplied chemicals and fireworks materials. Seizures of sulphur, aluminium powder, gunpowder, finished fireworks, electronic scales, bank documents, bills and challans from the factory and Jaydev Warehouse establish his direct role in funding, supplying and enabling the illegal operations.

3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this offence. Appellants have no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Investigation is complete. The case of the prosecution against both appellants rests primarily on alleged business and financial transactions through firms. There is no allegation that either appellant were present at the factory on the date of the incident, handled or stored any explosive substance, supervised the manufacturing process, controlled the labourers, or performed any overt act that caused or contributed to the explosion. Sections 105 and 110 of the BNS are not attracted. There is no specific “act” attributed to either appellant by which death was caused or attempted. Mere financial or commercial dealings cannot constitute the actus reus required under these provisions. Section 3(5) of BNS (common intention) requires a clear meeting of minds directed towards the particular criminal act. Commercial association or bank transactions, by themselves, do not establish common intention to cause an explosion or endanger human life. Offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6) require possession, control, causing of explosion, or abetment with the requisite knowledge and intention. No such material exists against either appellant. Supply of money or business association, without proof that it was for an unlawful purpose with knowledge, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 6. Provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 (Sections 5 & 9B) require specific cont