A local court in Chandigarh has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Vijay Kumar, the accused in connection with a devastating gas cylinder explosion in Burail village. The blast, which occurred on May 25, 2026, claimed three lives and left five others injured.
Details of the Incident
According to the First Information Report (FIR), Vijay Kumar was allegedly operating an illegal gas cylinder refilling business from his shop. The complainant stated that Vijay lived in an adjacent room where he carried out the unauthorized refilling of cylinders. He also sustained burn injuries in the explosion.
The complainant further alleged that the explosion was a direct result of Vijay Kumar's illegal refilling activities. Three individuals—Munna, Manish, and Gopi—died in the incident, while five others were injured. The victims were residing in a room located behind the shop, separated only by a wall. They were resting when the blast occurred.
Arguments by the Defense
Counsel for the accused argued that Vijay Kumar is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The defense submitted that he is a small shopkeeper earning his livelihood and had himself suffered injuries in the incident. It was also highlighted that he has been hospitalized since May 25, 2026, due to burn injuries sustained in the blast.
Prosecution's Objections
Opposing the bail plea, the Public Prosecutor argued that granting anticipatory bail could hamper the investigation. The prosecution contended that the accused might abscond or influence witnesses if granted protection from arrest.
Court's Observations
After hearing both sides, the court noted that, according to the prosecution, investigators recovered 18 gas cylinders and six nozzles from the spot during the investigation. The court observed that the accused had failed to explain how such a large number of cylinders came to be present in the room allegedly occupied by him if he had no connection with the incident.
The court further observed that the accused needs to be interrogated regarding the procurement and refilling of such a large number of cylinders into smaller ones. Considering the circumstances, the court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for a complete and effective investigation.
Rejecting the bail plea, the court stated that the mere fact that the accused had also suffered injuries in the explosion does not entitle him to the concession of anticipatory bail. The case continues to be under investigation.
