MR PRABHAKARA A K vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -


R

Reserved on : 01.09.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA



CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12707 OF 2026


BETWEEN:

1. MR.PRABHAKARA A.K.,
S/O A.KUMARAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ND
RESIDING AT NO.23, 2 MAIN ROAD,
SAI LAKE HABITAT,
SRI KRISHNA NAYAK LAYOUT,
HIRANDAHALLI, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 049.

AS INDICATED IN FIR
MR. PRABHAKAR (A3)/ENGINEER,
BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA.

2. MR. ARUN PARAMESHWAR KABBUR,
S/O PARAMESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
KARIKATTI, PARASGAD,
BELGAUM, KARNATAKA - 591 126.









Digitally signed
by CHETAN B C
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -



AS INDICATED IN REMAND APPLICATION -
MR.ARUN PARAMESHWAR KABBUR,
S/O PARAMESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT: C/O. SURESH,
LABOUR COLONY, BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI AMAR ALEXANDER CORREA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELLANDURU POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 035.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.
SRI SATHISH NAIK
S/O SHANKAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.102/01
ST
1 MAIN ROAD
OPP. PES COLLEGE
VEERABHADRA NAGAR
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-1)

- 3 -


THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 528 OF BNNS PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 11.07.2026 IN CR.NO.310/2026 BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 BELLANDURU POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 5 OF THE EXPLOSIVE
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 SECTION 9(B) OF EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1884
AND SECTIONS 288 AND 351(2) OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE XLI A.C.J.M BENGALURU CITY AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS WHO IS ACCUSED NO.3 AND 5 VIDE ANNEXURE A
AND B.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.09.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER
The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 5, are
before this Court calling in question the registration of Crime
No.310 of 2026, for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of
the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9(B) of the Explosives
Act, 1884 and Sections 288 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.

- 4 -


2. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta , learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha , learned
State Public Prosecutor-1 appearing for respondent No.1.


3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

nd
3.1. The 2 respondent/complainant is engaged in the
business of earthworks and controlled blasting in and around
Bengaluru, principally in connection with development projects. He
claims to possess a Shot Firer's Certificate, authorising him to
undertake mild controlled blasting operations, subject to obtaining
the requisite permission or no-objection certificate from the
competent local authority.
3.2. In December 2025, the complainant was approached by
nd
Srinivas Earth Movers, of which the 2 petitioner/accused No.5 is
the proprietor, for undertaking earthwork and blasting operations in
various survey numbers of Bhoganahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, at a
project known as Iris Maple Tree. The complainant agreed to extend
his services, licence and manpower for the execution of the work.
The requisite procedure for obtaining a no-objection certificate was

- 5 -


initiated before the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru
City, in January 2026.
3.3. Pursuant thereto, the complainant claims to have
undertaken mild controlled blasting operations using electric
detonators between January and March 2026, ostensibly in
accordance with the conditions of the licence. The controversy
appears to have erupted when substantial rock formations were
encountered beneath the surface of the land. The presence of these
formidable subterranean obstructions is alleged to have prompted
an insistence upon the complainant to accelerate the work by
resorting to blasting operations beyond the permissible contours of
the licence.
3.4. It is alleged that one Arun Kumar and Adarsh Developers
exerted pressure upon the complainant to employ explosive
substances in a manner contrary to the conditions governing their
use. The complainant claims to have resisted such demands and,
upon his refusal, to have been subjected to threats. What began as
a commercial engagement for the removal of rock formations thus
allegedly descended into a dispute concerning the employment of

- 6 -


prohibited explosive substances and threats arising from the refusal
to undertake the demanded operations.
3.5. This culminated in the registration of the complaint on
11-07-2026, which became Crime No.310 of 2026. It is the
registration of the said crime that has propelled the petitioners to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONERS:
4.1. Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners, would vehemently contend that the allegations,
even if accepted in their entirety and taken at their highest, fall
woefully short of constituting the ingredients of the offences
alleged. It is his submission that the gravamen of the complaint is
merely an alleged insistence upon the complainant to undertake
blasting operations. Such insistence, even assuming it to be true,
never fructified into the commission of any prohibited act. No illegal
blasting is alleged to have been carried out at the instance of the

- 7 -


petitioners, nor is there any allegation of an explosion resulting in
danger to human life or property.
4.2. The learned senior counsel would contend that criminal
law cannot be permitted to travel into the realm of conjecture and
punish an act which has neither been committed nor otherwise
attracted any statutory prohibition. He would, therefore, submit
that permitting investigation to continue would amount to an abuse
of the process of law.
STATE:
5.1. Per contra, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public
Prosecutor-I, would stoutly refute the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioners. The learned State Public Prosecutor would
submit that the argument founded upon the absence of an actual
explosion proceeds on a fundamental misconception of the
statutory scheme. According to him, the prosecution is not confined
to the allegation of an illegal blast having been carried out. The
inspection of the premises is stated to have revealed the presence
of electric detonators, the possession of which stands prohibited by

- 8 -


a notification issued by the competent authority. It is contended
that when the very possession of a particular explosive substance is
interdicted by law, the absence of its eventual use cannot furnish
an impregnable defence against investigation.

5.2. The learned State Public Prosecutor would further submit
that to terminate the proceedings at such an embryonic stage,
without permitting the investigating agency to ascertain the
circumstances surrounding the possession and intended use of the
prohibited material, would be to stifle the legitimate process of
investigation, before the truth has had an opportunity to emerge.
He would, therefore, seek dismissal of the petition.

6. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
would place considerable emphasis upon the proceedings against
Adarsh Developers, the owner of the property, having been
quashed on the premise that the said entity was unaware of the
activities undertaken at the site. It is contended that the petitioners
stand on no different footing and are, therefore, entitled to the
same benefit. According to the learned senior counsel, the

- 9 -


prosecution cannot be permitted to proceed selectively when the
factual substratum of the allegations is substantially common.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material placed on record.

CONSIDERATION:
8. The controversy, though presented through competing
submissions, lies within a narrow legal compass. The question is
whether, in the circumstances obtaining in the case at hand, the
absence of an actual illegal explosion would, by itself, justify the
obliteration of criminal proceedings, when the allegation also
concerns the possession and intended employment of a substance
whose possession stands prohibited by law?
9. The contractual relationship between the parties is not in
serious dispute. The complainant was engaged for undertaking
earthwork and controlled blasting operations to remove rock
formations at the project site. The dispute arose upon the alleged

- 10 -


insistence that the work be expedited by resorting to blasting
operations beyond the permissible limits of the licence. This led to
the registration of the complaint on 11-07-2026, which reads as
follows:
“ To

The Police Inspector,
Bellandur Police Station,
Bengaluru City.

From,
Satish Naik,
S/o Shankar Naik, Age: 33 years,
st
Door No. 102/1, 1 Main Road,
Opposite PES College, Veerabhadra Nagar,
rd
Banashankari 3 Stage, Bengaluru-560085.
Ph: 9845885588.

Respected Sir,
Sub: Complaint against Mr. Arun Kumar of Adarsha Developers
Owners, Directors, Site In-charge Mr. Jagan, Site Engineer
Prabhakar, Contractors, for illegal use and methods of
explosives/blasting endangering human life at Sy. No. 1/1, 2/2,
2/3, 2/4, 2/5, 3/1A, 3/1B, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, 3/5, 3/6, 3/7, 121/1
121/4, 122/1, 122/2, 122/3 122/4, 138/139/3, 141/1, 141/2
141/3, 141/4, 141/5, 6, 7, 142/3 Iris Maple Tree, Bhoganahalli
Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru.
I am residing at the above-mentioned address. I am doing Earth
works/blasting in and around development projects. I hold shot
firer's certificate (Certificate of Competency to carry out blasting
of explosive in India). The certificate number is
E/SZ/AP/30/7424 (E125258) issued by the Dy. Chief Controller
of Explosives, Vishakapatnam. This licence holds good to

- 11 -


undertake mild controlled blasting all over India subject to NOC
issued by the local authority.
In December 2025, I was approached by Srinivas Earth Movers
Proprietor Mr. Arun Kumar to lend my licence and manpower to
do earth work at the above-mentioned site owned by land as
mentioned above. Accordingly, I agreed and provided my
licence and obtained NOC through proper formalities and
procedures from Police Commissioner's Office, Bangaluru City in
January 2026. As per the licence conditions, I am supposed to
undertake mild controlled blasting using electrical detonators. I
did the work as per license conditions at the above-mentioned
site from January 2026 to March 2026. But later on, huge
volume of rocks were found underneath the ground. In order to
complete the work fast, Mr. Arun Kumar and Adarsha
Developers Company people pressurized me to use explosives in
contravention to the license, procedures and methods used to
do blasting. I refused to doing an uncontrolled blasting at the
site. Subsequently, they did not make any payment for the work
done by me and threatened me with dire consequences and
threatened to finish me.
Since March, they have been carrying out illegal methods, illegal
explosives, violated the license conditions and endangered
human life and getting blasting done from people known to
them who are not authorized to undertake blasting. Since
March, I have not been allowed to do the work at the site.
Today, they have undertaken blasting at the site using illegal
methods endangering human life at the above-mentioned site. I
request you to kindly take necessary legal action and register a
case against Mr. Arun Kumar and Adarsha Developers Owners
and Management, Site In-charge Mr. Jagan, Site Engineer
Prabhakar, Contractors, etc.
Thanking you,
Your sincerely
(Satish Nayak)
Sd/-
Date: 11/07/2026
Place: Bangalore.”

- 12 -


10. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I would draw the
attention of this Court to the notification issued by the Department
for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, bearing S.O.2920(E) dated 01-07-2025.
“ DPIIT Notification S.O. 2920(E) dated 1 July, 2025

S.O. 2920(E) . - In continuation of Ministry of Commerce
& Industry, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal
Trade’s S.O. 4255 (E) dated 29.09.2023 and S.O. 1563 (E)
dated 02.04.2025, it is reiterated that the manufacture,
possession and import of the electric detonator (explosive of
Class 6 Division 3 or UN Class 1 Division 1) is prohibited
st
throughout the country with effect from the 1 day of July,
2025.

Provided that such prohibition, manufacture, possession
and, import of Permitted Delay Detonators for usage in coal
mines and suitable Detonators for Oil well logging operations
and seismic survey by oil and gas operator companies for oil
th
exploration and production, shall not be applicable till 30 Day
of September, 2025.

[F. No. P-13015/45/2021-EXPLOSIVE-Part(1)]”

The notification, issued in continuation of the earlier notifications
dated 29-09-2023 and 02-04-2025, reiterates the prohibition on
the manufacture, possession and import of electric detonators
throughout the country with effect from 01-07-2025, subject to the
limited transitional exceptions indicated therein. The language of
the notification is of considerable significance. The prohibition is not

- 13 -


confined to the use of electric detonators. It expressly extends to
their manufacture, possession and import .

11. The distinction is neither ornamental nor inconsequential.
The law, in its wisdom, has chosen to interdict possession itself,
without waiting for the prohibited substance to be employed in an
explosion. Where the legislative or delegated statutory command
proscribes possession, the inquiry cannot be confined to whether
the substance has actually been used. The prohibition attaches to
the possession of the substance, subject, of course, to the
establishment of the requisite ingredients of the offence.
12. Certain Rules have been promulgated under the
Explosives Act, 1884. Rule 10 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 deals
with general restrictions. Rule 10(3) reads as follows:
“10. .... .... ....

(3) Restriction on transport —(a) Any explosive of
Class 5 (Fulminate) or detonator or any other explosive of
Class 6 (Ammunition) containing its own means of ignition or
initiation, or an explosive of Class 7 (Fireworks) shall not be
transported in the same carriage, or save as provided in Part
3 of Schedule VI in the same vessel and shall not beconveyed
or handled with any explosives not of the class and division to
which it belongs.

- 14 -



(a) No person shall transport any explosive with explosives
belonging to Compatibility Group K referred to against
serial number 10 in Table 1 under Part 3 of Schedule I,
in a vehicle.

(b) No person shall transport explosives of Class 3 or
Class 2 along with detonators.

(c) Nothing in clauses (a) and (b) shall apply to the
transport of explosives of Class 2 and/or Class 3, safety
fuse, detonating fuse and detonators in a compressor
mounted motor truck or tractor covered under a licence
as per these rules.”

It mandates that no person shall transport explosives of Class 3 or
Class 2 along with detonators. If the notification quoted supra is
read in tandem with the Rules, what would unmistakably emerge is,
that electric detonator that was found at the site which was kept for
use for blast of rocks was undoubtedly a prohibited substance.
Interpretation of storing those substances would become an offence
would not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.


1
13. The High Court of Madras in FRANCIES v. STATE , has
held as follows:
“.... .... ....

1
2026 SCC OnLine Mad 5123

- 15 -



16. As far as Section 5 of the above said Act is
concerned, the possession of explosive substance which
give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person is in
possession of the same not for lawful object, then he is
liable to be punished. In the present case, admittedly, the
object of possession was to remove the rocks from the School
premises. The prior permission has already been granted by the
District Collector. However, no permission has been granted to
use the explosive substances. Therefore, the object for which
the possession of explosives was found, cannot be considered to
be an unlawful object.

17. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported in
(1981) 2 SCC 443: 1981 SCC (Cri) 477 (Mohammad
Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of
Maharashtra) paragraph Nos. 13 & 14 are as follows:

“13. In order to bring home the offence
under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,
the prosecution has to prove: (i) that the
substance in question is explosive substance; (ii)
that the accused makes or knowingly has in his
possession or under his control any explosive
substances; and (iii) that he does so under such
circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable
suspicion that he is not doing so for a lawful
object.

14. The burden of proof of these
ingredients is on the prosecution. The moment
the prosecution has discharged that burden, it
shifts to the accused to show that he was making
or possessing the explosive substance for a
lawful object, if he takes that plea.”

18. As per the above said judgment, all the three
ingredients have to be satisfied for attracting Section 5 of
the Act. Admittedly, the third ingredient, that the
circumstances as to give rise reasonable suspicion that he will
not do so for lawful object is not available. This judgment has
been followed by our High Court in Crl.R.C. No. 398 of
2017 (M. Duraisamy v. State Rep.by the Inspector of
Police, Mahudanchavadi Police Station) dated 2-3-2023

- 16 -


wherein the accused was in possession of the explosive
substance for the purpose of blasting the rock inside the
Well. Paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 of the said judgment are as
follows:

“12. The burden of proof of the above
three ingredients is solely on the
prosecution. The moment the prosecution
has discharged that burden, it shifts to the
accused person to show that he was making
or possessing the explosive substance for a
lawful object. Useful reference can be made
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in this
regard in Mohamad Usman Mohammad
Hussain Maniyar v. The State of Maharashtra,
(1981) 2 SCC 443: 1981 SCC (Cri) 477: AIR
1981 SC 1062.

13. In the instant case, the first two
ingredients has been proved as already
stated supra. The third ingredient has not
been proved by the prosecution against the
petitioner. The prosecution nowhere has
proved that the petitioner, who was in
possession of the explosive substance had
created the reasonable suspicion that he is
possessing the same for an unlawful object.
Even as per the confession statement that
was recorded from the petitioner, it is clear
that the petitioner was having the explosive
substance to blast the rock inside his well.””


14. The High Court of Jharkhand in TARKESHWAR JAISWAL
2
v. STATE OF JHARKHAND , has held as follows:

2

2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 565

- 17 -


“.... .... ....

8. In counter to the submission made on behalf of the
appellant that the material which has been recovered as per the
seizure memo cannot be construed to be explosive substance,
in this regard, submission has been made by referring to the
incriminating material not construed to be wholly explosive,
rather, it is explosive substance and for the purpose of
strengthening his argument, he has placed the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad
Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra ,
reported in (1981) 2 SCC 443 : AIR 1981 SC 1062, wherein, the
definition of ‘explosive substance’ has been dealt with, wherein,
explosive itself cannot be construed to be substance unless, the
said explosive itself can cause the explosion, then it will come
under the fold of explosive substance, therefore, the ingredients
of Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, will be attracted.

9. Here, in the instant case, the recovery which has
been shown of articles as per the seizure memo, is
explosive substance, since, the same is Potassium
Chloride and Ammonium Nitrate and both these
substances are itself can cause explosion without any aid
of detonator and hence, it is under explosive substance
and as such, there is ingredient of Section 3/4 of the
Explosive Substance Act.
… … …
16. This Court, thus, is of the view that material
which has been recovered, is explosive substance as per
the report of the expert opinion and there is no reason to
take different view from the opinion of experts.”

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

The High Court of Jharkhand holds that an explosive can be treated
as an explosive substance, if it is capable of causing explosion by
itself without the aid of a detonator.

- 18 -


15. The notification and the Rules, read in their respective
spheres, reveal the unmistakable legislative concern underlying the
regulation of explosive substances. The law does not merely
address the aftermath of an explosion; it seeks to regulate the
circumstances in which explosive substances are manufactured,
possessed, transported and handled. The reason is not far to seek.
Explosive substances, by their very nature, carry within
them the potential for consequences that may be swift,
irreversible and catastrophic. A regulatory regime governing
such substances cannot be rendered dependent, solely upon
the occurrence of an explosion. To do so would be to convert
a preventive statutory safeguard into a mere response to
disaster.
16. In the case at hand, the allegation concerning the
presence of electric detonators at the project site assumes
significance in the light of the notification. Whether the substances
found were indeed those covered by the prohibition, who possessed
or controlled them, whether the petitioners had the requisite
knowledge or involvement, and whether the circumstances attract

- 19 -


the statutory offences are all matters that necessarily demand
investigation. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to
pronounce upon the guilt of the petitioners. It is called upon only to
determine whether the allegations disclose circumstances
warranting investigation. The two inquiries are fundamentally
distinct.
17. The absence of an accomplished explosion may have a
bearing upon the eventual proof of particular offences. It cannot,
however, be treated as an answer to every allegation arising under
a statutory framework that independently regulates or prohibits
possession.
18. In that light, finding no merit to interfere at this stage of
the proceedings, the petition stands rejected.

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2026 also stands disposed.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp