NIA Uncovers Larger Conspiracy in Malappuram Explosives Seizure, Court Denies Bail to Key Accused

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has told a special court that it is probing a larger criminal conspiracy involving a firm based in Talikoti, Karnataka, in connection with the seizure of a huge quantity of explosives from Malappuram district in Kerala in February 2026.

The NIA is investigating the seizure of 89,600 gelatin sticks and 1.05 lakh non-electric detonators from a lorry carrying onion sacks at Tirurangadi in Malappuram on February 7, 2026.

Mantagound Biradar (35) of Bijapur, Karnataka, and Bapagoud Bheeramaya Choudri (47) of Talikoti, Karnataka, recently approached the NIA court in Kochi seeking anticipatory bail after the agency initiated steps to interrogate them.

The NIA submitted that Biradar and Choudri are the owners of Chetan Enterprises, the firm that supplied the seized explosives. According to the agency, Biradar had purchased the explosives from Vetrivel Explosives and Trident Explosives in Tamil Nadu.

The agency told the court that its investigation revealed that the barcode labels affixed to the explosive packages had been deliberately removed or tampered with to conceal their source, ownership and movement. During a search of the magazine premises of Chetan Enterprises in Talikoti, investigators recovered live detonators and tampered barcode labels.

“These circumstances point towards a larger criminal conspiracy and prima facie reveal illegal handling and trafficking of explosive substances, necessitating custodial interrogation of the petitioners to ascertain the source, movement and intended use of the explosives,” the NIA submitted.

According to the agency, the materials collected during the investigation prima facie reveal the petitioners’ involvement in the criminal conspiracy and indicate the existence of a larger network behind the offence.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that they were licensed explosives dealers and had legally purchased the materials from authorised manufacturers. The defence contended that, since their possession of the explosives was lawful, offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act were not attracted and, at best, the allegations amounted to violations under the Explosives Act, 1884, which are bailable. The petitioners also produced tax invoices, the firm’s registration certificate and licences issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai.

However, the NIA maintained that the deliberate removal and destruction of barcode labels amounted to an attempt to destroy material evidence and frustrate the regulatory tracking mechanism, warranting a detailed investigation into the larger conspiracy.

The court asked the petitioners to produce the GST e-way bill relating to the consignment, but they failed to do so. “The failure on the part of the petitioners to produce the e-way bill issued by them shows that the petitioners have sold the explosives to unauthorised persons without bills. The fact that the explosive materials were found concealed under onion bags without the labels required under the rules makes it clear that the petitioners sold them illegally,” the court observed.

The NIA further alleged that the investigation unearthed fabricated documents showing that the explosives had been sold to other dealers and later blasted. According to the agency, documents were created to show that Chetan Enterprises had sold the explosives, including the boxes bearing barcode labels, to Sai Traders on February 2, 2026, with records indicating that the consignment reached its destination on the same day. The NIA also alleged that records were fabricated to show that the explosives were later sold to a licensed blaster, Meteti Pradeepa Kumar, on February 15 and had been used in blasting operations. However, the same explosives had in fact been seized in Malappuram on February 7.

The agency further submitted that Prakash Biradar, brother of petitioner Mantagound Biradar, is one of the accused in the case and is currently absconding. The NIA court denied anticipatory bail to both petitioners, citing the seriousness of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation.