Bail can be refused on prima facie evidence of grave explosive-offence involvement where release may prejudice trial.

Bail may be refused where prima facie material shows serious involvement in a grave offence and release is likely to prejudice the trial before material witnesses are examined. The record linked the accused to the illegal procurement, transportation and use of explosive substances, and the seriousness of the allegations and punishment supported continued detention at that stage. Bail was declined, with liberty to renew the request after examination of the material witnesses.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in view of the prima facie material indicating involvement in offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

Analysis: The record disclosed prima facie material connecting the petitioners with the illegal procurement, transportation and use of explosive substances. The allegations were serious, the punishment prescribed was severe, and the prosecution had not yet examined the material witnesses. In these circumstances, releasing the petitioners at that stage was considered likely to prejudice the trial.

Conclusion: Bail was rightly declined and the refusal of bail was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to release on bail at the present stage, though liberty was preserved to renew the request after examination of the material witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be refused where prima facie material shows serious involvement in a grave offence and release is likely to prejudice the trial before material witnesses are examined.

---