Mantagoud Biradar & Ors. vs Union Of India

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

Crl.Appeal No.1222/2026 is filed by accused No.9 to 11 in R.C.No.01/2026/NIA/COK and Crl.Appeal No.1258/2026 is filed by accused No.7 against the order dismissing their regular bail application by the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam.

Accused No.7 was arrested on 08.08.2026 by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and Accused Nos. 9 to 11 were arrested on 7.08.2026. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

On 07.02.2026, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirurangadi, intercepted a lorry parked within the compound of a hollow bricks manufacturing unit near Thirurangadi, based on prior information that explosives were being transported in a lorry. Upon inspection, the police team found 35 boxes containing 10,500 non-electric detonators and 448 boxes containing 89,600 gelatin sticks inside the lorry. The explosives and detonators were found buried beneath 133 sacks of onions. The police arrested six persons and registered a case for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Subsequently, the NIA took over the investigation, suspecting a larger conspiracy behind the incident. The NIA alleges that the appellants are the principal conspirators in the crime and have played a central role in facilitating the unlawful activities under investigation.

Accused No. 9 to 11 are the proprietors of M/s. Chetan Enterprises, a firm engaged in the business of explosives. They allegedly purchased the seized articles from M/s. Vetrivel Explosives, Trichy, and, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, the accused persons deliberately removed and tampered with the barcode labels affixed on the explosive packages with the intention of concealing their origin, ownership, and movement, and thereafter unlawfully sold them to the first accused for illegal and unlawful purposes, it is alleged. The prosecution further alleges that accused No.7 is the proprietor of M/s.Farha Hollow Bricks, from the premises of which the explosives were seized by the police. The prosecution further alleges that accused No.7 possessed the explosives without any licence and he conspired together with the other accused persons in procuring the explosive substances by manipulating the records.

Accused No.9 to 11 contended that they are only lawful businessmen engaged in the trade of explosives under a valid licence and permit and thus their acts would not amount to the offences alleged. Their continued detention is absolutely purposeless, it is urged. Accused No.7 also contended that the NIA has already taken him in their custody for ten days and thus there is no purpose for detaining him any further.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons/appellants and the learned Additional Solicitor General for India at High Court of Kerala.

Although the allegations levelled against the accused persons are serious in nature, no material has been placed before us to substantiate that any of their acts amounted to an offence falling beyond the scope of Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosives Act, 1884. The written objection filed by the NIA also, incidentally, indicates that, even after taking the aforesaid accused persons into custody, the investigating agency has not, so far, been able to unearth any material pointing in that direction. It also appears that the investigation in the case has reached an advanced stage. It is not in dispute that Accused Nos. 9 and 10 were holders of licences to sell explosives. All the other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. The aforesaid accused persons have been in custody for nearly 50 days. In the circumstances, we find no reason to deny them the benefit of parity of treatment.

It is argued that Accused No. 9 has criminal antecedents and that he did not disclose the details of those cases in his application for bail. However, in Ground No. M of the Memorandum of Appeal, he has furnished the details of such cases. The learned counsel appearing for Accused Nos. 9 to 11 has also filed a statement setting out the details of those cases and explaining that, as the accused persons were in custody, the full particulars of the cases were not readily available when the bail application was filed. It is stated in the said statement that three of those cases ended in acquittal, while one was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is further stated that Accused No. 9 is not an accused in Crime No. 86/2012 of Devara Hipparagi Police Station, Vijayapura, Karnataka as alleged, and that the accused in the said crime was acquitted on 02.07.2025. It is also stated that he is not an accused in Crime No. 113/2024 of Nargund Police Station, Gadag. Accused No. 7 has disclosed that two criminal cases had been registered against him for similar offences.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, has observed that the mere pendency of several criminal cases against an accused, by itself, cannot be a ground for refusing bail, if the accused otherwise makes out a case for grant of bail. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the continued detention of the aforesaid accused persons is not necessary for any purpose. The apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Solicitor General regarding the possibility of the accused persons repeating similar offences can be allayed by imposing stringent conditions while granting them bail.

In the result, the appeals are allowed and the orders impugned are set aside. The Special Court is directed to release accused Nos. 7 and 9 to 11 on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Special Court, and subject to the following conditions: