Twelve workers died in the Dewas Fireworks Blast, yet the Madhya Pradesh High Court has released the two men accused of financing and running the illegal unit on bail, saying “mere designation as owner/financer or manager/partner/owner cannot, in every circumstance, automatically establish criminal culpability.”
Indore: Mukesh Vij and Anil Malviya, accused in connection with the May 14, 2026 explosion at an illegal fireworks factory in Village Tokkala, Dewas district, that killed 12 labourers and seriously injured 19 others, have been released on bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, which on October 26, 2026 allowed their two criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [Mukesh Vij v. State of M.P. and Anr.].
A single-judge Bench of Justice Alok Awasthi set aside the September 9, 2026 order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dewas, which had rejected their bail applications (Nos. 1074/2026 and 1079/2026). Malviya has been in custody since May 17 and Vij since May 19, 2026.
A grave tragedy, but gravity alone does not decide bail
The Court called the incident “extremely grave and tragic” and said the seriousness of the occurrence cannot be the sole consideration for keeping an accused in custody through trial. On the case diary, it recorded:
“The firecrackers were being manufactured inside a tin-roofed shed during the intense heat of May, which demonstrates gross negligence. However, it is clear that the said accident was not the result of any deliberate act by any individual.”
The case diary, the Court added, disclosed no documentary evidence that any minor was engaged in manufacturing.
What the prosecution alleges
The FIR, Crime No. 176/2026 at Police Station Tonkkhurd, invokes Sections 105, 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3 to 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 5 and 9(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3(1)(h) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and Sections 79 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
According to the prosecution, about 70 to 75 labourers were filling fireworks with gunpowder and chemicals inside tin sheds when the blast occurred around 11 AM. Investigators allege that the unit ran without proper fire safety, without the required NOCs and in breach of licence conditions, with explosives stored far beyond permissible limits.
The prosecution further alleges that Vij, through his firms Vij Technology & Consultants and S.K. Enterprises, was the main financial controller and partner, that crores of rupees moved between his firms and Malviya, described as the ostensible operator, and that his firms supplied chemicals and fireworks material. Government Advocate Aditya Garg opposed bail, calling the two the “financial backbone” of the operation and arguing they could influence poor migrant witnesses.
Business dealings, not a hand in the blast
Senior Advocate Vishal Baheti, assisted by Advocates Aditya Singh and Kinjal Shrivastava, argued that the case against both men rested on business and financial transactions. Neither was alleged to have been present at the factory that day, handled explosives, supervised manufacturing or committed any overt act. He submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed, the investigation was complete and neither appellant had criminal antecedents.
Individual responsibility, not designation
On liability, the Court held:
“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. At the same time, this Court is not recording any finding that the appellants were free from responsibility or that the prosecution allegations are unfounded.”
The factory premises, records and physical evidence were already with the investigating agency, the Court noted, so further custodial interrogation was not required. Continued incarceration, it said, “cannot be justified merely on the basis of seriousness of the allegations.” Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Kumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, it found that detention was “not shown to be indispensable for the purpose of investigation or trial.”
Terms of release
Each appellant must furnish a personal bond of Rs 10 lakh with a separate solvent surety of the like amount. They cannot leave India without permission, must give their addresses, mobile numbers and email IDs to the trial court, and must not induce or threaten witnesses. The Court made clear that bail “shall not be construed as permission to resume any activity involving the manufacture, storage or handling of explosives,” and that the trial court may cancel bail on any violation without reference to the High Court.
The Court clarified that its observations are confined to bail and are not an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case. The allegations remain to be tested at trial, and both accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the order matters
Industrial disasters with heavy loss of life often lead to long pre-trial custody for owners and financiers. The order draws a line between the gravity of a tragedy and the individual role an accused must be shown to have played, while keeping public safety in view by barring the appellants from any explosives-related activity on bail. Whether either man is criminally responsible for the Dewas fireworks blast will now be decided at trial.
Case Title: Mukesh Vij v. State of M.P. and Anr., with Anil Malviya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 8191 of 2026 with Criminal Appeal No. 8150 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:31069
Bench: Justice Alok Awasthi, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Vishal Baheti, Senior Advocate, with Aditya Singh and Kinjal Shrivastava, for the appellants; Aditya Garg, Government Advocate, for the State