A local court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Vijay Kumar, who is facing charges in connection with a gas cylinder explosion in Burail village that claimed three lives and left five others injured on May 25, 2026.
According to the FIR, Vijay Kumar was allegedly running an illegal gas cylinder refilling operation from his shop. The complainant alleged that Vijay, who lived in an adjacent room and carried out the illegal refilling of cylinders there, also suffered burn injuries.
The complainant further stated that the explosion occurred due to Vijay Kumar’s alleged illegal refilling activities. Three persons—Munna, Manish and Gopi—died in the incident, while five others sustained injuries. The victims were living in a room located behind the shop, separated only by a wall. They were resting in the room when the explosion took place.
Counsel for the accused argued that Vijay Kumar is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The defence submitted that he is a small shopkeeper earning his livelihood and had himself suffered injuries in the incident. It was also argued that he has been admitted to a hospital since May 25, 2026, due to burn injuries sustained in the blast.
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.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that, according to the prosecution, investigators recovered 18 gas cylinders and six nozzles from the spot during the investigation. The court noted 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 said that the mere fact that the accused had also suffered injuries in the explosion does not entitle him to the concession of anticipatory bail.
