Click the Play button to listen to article

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to two men accused in a firecracker unit explosion that occurred in Dewas in May 2026, claiming the lives of 12 people and seriously injuring 19 people, observing that mere designation as owner does not automatically establish criminal culpability. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 452]

Emphasising the prosecution's role in establishing individual responsibility of each accused, the bench of Justice Alok Awasthi directed:

"Mere designation as owner/financer or manager/partner/owner cannot, in every circumstance, automatically establish criminal culpability. The prosecution will have to establish the individual responsibility of each appellant in accordance with the ingredients of the offence alleged". 

Criminal appeals were filed by two men challenging the order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) wherein their bail applications were rejected. The appellants have been in custody since May 17, 2026. 

Per the prosecution, on May 14, 2026, a massive explosion took place in an illegal fireworks factory in District Dewas, claiming the lives of 12 people and seriously injuring about 19 people. Investigation revealed that the factory was operating without proper fire safety, required NOCs and in violation of licence conditions, with far more explosives than permissible being stored at the factory. 

Allegedly, Appellant no 1, Mukesh Vij, acted as the main financial controller and partner and Appellant No. 2, Anil Malviya, was the operator of the factory, 

The appellants submitted that they were falsely implicated in this matter and have been in custody since May, 2026. It was argued that the chargesheet has been filed and the prosecution's case rests on alleged business and financial transactions which do not warrant continued incarceration. There is no specific act attributed to either appellant by which death was caused. They are accused of financial or commercial dealings which cannot constitute the required actus reus under Section 105 BNS, culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

The counsel for the State argued that the explosion led to the death of 12 labourers. Both appellants, through their firms, acted as principal financial controllers and partners. The scale, nature and continuity of dealings establish knowledge, abetment, and common intention. 

The court noted that the firecrackers were being manufactured inside a tin-roofed shed during the intense heat of May, which demonstrates Gross Negligence. However, the accident was not the result of any deliberate act by any individual. Also the review of the case dairy indicate that no minor was engaged in the task. 

The court further emphasised, "There can be no dispute that the incident in question is extremely grave and tragic. The loss of 12 human lives and serious injuries suffered by 19 workers have caused immense suffering to the affected families. The workers had gone to the factory to earn their livelihood, and their lives were lost in circumstances which according to the prosecution, could have been avoided by adherence to the prescribed safety standards. This Court is conscious of the magnitude of the tragedy and the serious allegations levelled against the appellants". 

However, the court also noted that courts, while considering appeals for grant of bail, are required to "strike a balance between the gravity of the accusation and the fundamental right to personal liability". 

The court noted that the allegations against the appellantsare primary from their position as owner or financier and partner/owner of the factory and their alleged failure to comply with prescribed in safety requirements. 

The court highlighted that the prosecution would have to establish the individual responsibility of each appellant in accordance with the ingredients of the offence alleged. The court further noted that the investigation has been concluded and the appellants have been in custody for many months.

Further, the authorities did not show material indicating that their continued incarceration cannot be justified merely on the basis of the seriousness of the allegation, especially in the absence of a demonstrated investigative requirement. 

The court, while granting bail, highlighted, "This Court is also conscious of the fact that the allegations concern an industrial establishment dealing with explosive materials and involve questions of public safety. Therefore, grant of bail shall not be construed as permission to resume any activity involving the manufacture, storage or handling of explosives. The appellants shall remain bound by all statutory restrictions and directions issued by the competent authorities". 

Referring to the Supreme Court case of Kumer Singh v State of Rajasthan [2021 6 SCC 676], the court reiterated that the nature of accusations, severity of punishments, and nature of supporting evidence are relevant considerations. Thus, examining the facts and evidence of the case, the court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the appellants and thus set aside the appeals. 

For Appellants: Senior Advocate Vishal Baheti with Advocates Aditya Singh and Kinjal Shrivastava

For State: Government Advocate Aditya Garg

Tags: