Bail was justified where the accused’s alleged role was limited to supplying explosives to the principal offender.

The petitions arose from a vehicle explosion near a wine shop at Jangali Cross, Hipparagi Village, which damaged the vehicle and injured a passing motorcyclist.

The prosecution alleged a property dispute between accused No. 1 and the complainant, and that accused Nos. 6 and 7—the petitioners—had sold explosive substance to accused No. 1.

The petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying, among other grounds, on parity with accused Nos. 3 and 4, who had been granted bail by the trial court.

The State opposed bail, citing the risk of witness tampering and interference with the trial.

Whether accused Nos. 6 and 7 were entitled to regular bail in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the allegations, including the alleged sale of explosive substance to accused No. 1, and the State’s concerns about interference with the trial justified refusing bail.

The petitions were brought under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the relevant basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

In deciding bail, the Court stated that relevant considerations include the nature and circumstances of the offence, the petitioners’ position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of absconding, committing further offences or tampering with witnesses, and the petitioners’ character and antecedents.

The Court also noted that a bail application does not require the court to scrutinize the prosecution case as if conducting a mini-trial.

The Court considered the alleged role of accused Nos. 6 and 7, which it described as the sale of explosive substance to accused No. 1, and noted that their implication followed accused No. 1’s voluntary statement.

It also considered that accused Nos. 3 and 4 had been granted bail, that the injured motorcyclist had been discharged, and that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Applying the stated bail considerations without conducting a mini-trial, the Court concluded that the material did not provide reasonable and sufficient grounds, at that stage, to believe the petitioners guilty of the alleged offences.

Bail was subject to conditions that the petitioners not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, attend the trial court as required, and not commit similar or other offences; breach could lead the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.