Sri Vijaya Puram, Aug 24: The Sessions Court in Andaman and Nicobar Islands has granted bail to M. Shahid Ali alias Shalu, accused of allegedly bursting a firecracker inside airport premises, after observing that the circumstances on record did not indicate an intention to cause grievous hurt or death.
In a recent order, the Sessions Judge examined the applicability of the stringent aviation-safety provision invoked against Ali and observed that the circumstances placed before the court did not indicate that the accused intended to cause grievous hurt or death.
The court further observed that the article allegedly used, a firecracker, was not, in the circumstances of the case, such a dangerous article as was likely to cause grievous hurt or death.
The observations were made while deciding Ali’s bail application and do not amount to an acquittal or a final determination of the charges against him, which will be considered during the trial.
The case arises from Aberdeen Police Station FIR No. 71 of 2026 and is being heard as Sessions Case No. 29 of 2026. Ali faces charges under Sections 287, 288 and 270 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), read with Section 3A(1)(a) of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982.
The case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, after the investigation was completed and a chargesheet filed.
Intent under scrutiny
The prosecution case, as reflected in the court order, alleges that Ali burst a firecracker within the airport premises.
While considering the bail application, the court examined Section 3A(1)(a) of the aviation-safety law, which relates to the unlawful and intentional use of a device, substance or weapon likely to cause grievous hurt or death.
The court, however, observed that the circumstances before it did not indicate that Ali intended to cause grievous hurt or death. It also examined the nature of the article allegedly used and made its observations regarding whether the firecracker, in the circumstances of the case, was likely to cause such harm.
The defence, while seeking bail, told the court that Ali had been in custody since May 1, 2026 and had been falsely implicated.
It also argued that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet filed, meaning there was no further investigative requirement necessitating his continued detention.
The defence submitted that Ali was a permanent resident of the Islands and was therefore unlikely to abscond. His family circumstances, including his wife and young child, were also cited before the court.
Ali additionally submitted an affidavit stating that no bail application filed by him had previously been rejected or remained pending before the High Court.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations were serious and that releasing Ali could affect the trial.
It expressed apprehension that he could threaten or influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or otherwise hamper the proceedings. The prosecution also described Ali as a habitual offender with criminal antecedents and sought rejection of his bail application.
The Sessions Court, after considering the submissions from both sides and examining the material before it, found grounds to grant bail.
Court cites condition
The court also recorded that Ali appeared to be suffering from a mental health condition which, in its assessment, may have contributed to the alleged act.
The order described the alleged conduct as a “foolish act” and took Ali’s apparent mental health condition into consideration while deciding the bail application.
The court also noted that the investigation had already been completed and that a custody-based trial was likely to take considerable time.
Taking into account the nature of the allegations, the circumstances of the case and the period already spent in detention, the court allowed the bail plea.
Ali has been directed to furnish a Rs 10,000 bail bond with two sureties of Rs 5,000 each, subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair.
The court imposed four conditions on his release. He must not threaten, intimidate or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence; he cannot leave the local jurisdiction without prior permission of the court; he must appear before the court on every date of hearing; and he must not commit any offence while on bail.
The court warned that violation of any of these conditions could result in cancellation of bail.
The order granting bail was passed on August 11. The matter has now been listed for October 5, 2026, for Ali’s appearance, if on bail, and consideration of charges.
The court order also contains an apparent discrepancy regarding the date on which Ali was taken into custody. Its opening portion records that he has been in custody since May 1, 2026, while a later paragraph mentions May 1, 2027. Since the order itself was passed in August 2026, the latter appears to be a typographical error in the court document.
The bail order does not determine Ali’s guilt or innocence, and the allegations against him will be tested during the trial. The court’s observations on the nature of the alleged act and the question of intent were made in the context of deciding whether he should remain in custody pending trial.
The case will next move to consideration of charges, when the court will determine the provisions under which Ali will face trial, including the aviation-safety charge invoked by the prosecution.
