Bengaluru Pulakeshinagar Blast: Three Arrested, IED in Torch

Updated 28 October 2026. On 25 October, Bengaluru Police said the blast was caused by an improvised explosive device (IED) hidden inside a torch battery, and that three men from Assam have been arrested. According to the police press release as carried by The South First, the three conspired over a personal dispute with one of the injured men and made the device themselves from locally bought material and instructions found online. The Police Commissioner said it was personal rivalry and not a terror attack. These are police statements. The three are accused, they have not been tried, and no court has made any finding. The sections below keep the reports as they stood on 21 to 23 October, and some of those accounts, such as the battery torch and the bag picked up from the road, no longer match the police version.

What happened

Two men were hurt in an explosion at an under-construction building on Jermiah (also spelt Jeremiah) Road in Pulakeshinagar, also written Pulikeshi Nagar, in Bengaluru. Most reports place it on the afternoon of Tuesday, 20 October 2026, and the news broke on Wednesday, 21 October. Our automated live-events feed listed it under 21 October, but the police account points to the day before. Both injured men were taken to Bowring Hospital in Shivajinagar (Free Press Journal, Oneindia, Indian Opinion). Nobody was reported dead.

The hour is not settled. IANS says around noon. A witness quoted by Oneindia and DNA puts it at about 2 p.m., and India TV says around 2.30 p.m. City Police Commissioner Seemant Kumar Singh said the police learnt of it only on Tuesday evening, after the hospital sent a medico-legal case report (ANI, via Asianet Newsable and The News Mill). Karnataka minister Priyank Kharge told reporters it happened “last night”, which does not match the Commissioner’s account of an afternoon blast. We have gone with the Commissioner’s Tuesday afternoon.

The building is on the Pulakeshinagar police station limits. According to ANI, interior work was going on and some completed flats in the same building were already occupied by families. Oneindia, DNA and Country and Politics say the explosion was on the fourth floor, while the Indian Express says the torch went off on the fifth floor of a seven-storey building and News Karnataka calls it a five-storey building.

The injured

Two men were injured. We are not naming them. Reports differ on who they were and how badly they were hurt:

• Who: PTI (Free Press Journal), Oneindia and DNA call both of them construction workers. ANI quotes the Commissioner as saying one was a worker and the other the building’s security guard. Both are from other states and not from Bengaluru, ANI reports, and the police are checking their backgrounds with the police in those states.
• How badly: Free Press Journal, Oneindia and DNA say “seriously injured”; Varthabharati reports serious head and facial injuries. A witness quoted by Oneindia and DNA says one man’s eye was badly hurt and the other lost a hand. IANS says one reportedly lost a finger. Minister Kharge, as reported by ANI, said one man had burns and the other minor injuries. ANI says one is still in hospital and the other has been discharged; The Logical Indian says the same.
• Latest accounts (22 October): The Indian Express, citing hospital sources, says the two workers are from Uttar Pradesh and Assam. In its version a painter who bore the brunt lost two fingers and had severe burns and shrapnel wounds on his face, head and chest, and a security guard had a minor eye injury. The Hindu has the roles the other way round: the man from Assam working at the building lost a finger, and the security guard from Uttar Pradesh had minor injuries and is being questioned. The Hans India says both have burns and were taken to Victoria Hospital, whereas other outlets say Bowring Hospital. We cannot settle which account is right.

We still have no hospital statement. Public TV reported on 22 October that both men were out of danger and recovering, and that the police planned to record their statements once the doctors allowed it. Updated 28 October 2026: The South First reports that one of the injured men is still in hospital and the other has been discharged.

What caused it: the police version, and the earlier accounts

Updated 28 October 2026. Bengaluru Police now say the explosion was caused by an IED hidden inside a torch battery. Their press release, as carried by The South First on 25 October, says three men from Assam were arrested, two in Bengaluru and one at Maski in Raichur district, after ten special teams checked more than 1,500 CCTV cameras and questioned over 100 people. Police allege the three conspired, over a personal dispute with one of the injured men, to harm him. The dispute is described as a land matter, a money matter and a cancelled marriage in the family back in their home village in Assam, and the device is said to have been built by the accused from material bought locally and instructions found online. ThePrint reports that the Police Commissioner called it a case of personal rivalry and not a terror attack, and told people there was no need to panic. Police say the device reached the site as a parcel; the two reports we opened tell its delivery differently, and we do not settle it. All of this is the police account. The accused have not been tried, a court has made no finding, and ThePrint says the motive is still being verified. We do not name any of the men.

What follows is what was reported before the arrests. On 21 October the Commissioner had said the cause was not established, that every possibility including an IED was being examined, and that no parcel was involved, a remark the police version has since overtaken. The accounts then in circulation did not agree with each other:

• An IED. IANS reports that the blast is suspected to be an IED and that investigators are checking whether a device was placed at the site two days earlier. The same report says the police are also looking at a chemical reaction. This is a suspicion, not a finding.
• A battery. ANI reports that one injured man told the police he pressed a button on a battery-operated object he called a “battery torch” and it blew up, and that the Commissioner said the two men’s statements contradict each other. Oneindia and DNA carry preliminary information that a battery-like object kept inside a bag exploded. This is the injured man’s own account and has not been tested.
• A bag picked up from the road. India TV carries preliminary information that the two workers found a bag lying on the road, took it to the fourth floor and it exploded when they opened it. Other outlets do not report this, and the Commissioner’s statements as reported by ANI do not mention it.
• An IED disguised as a torch (22 October). The Indian Express, citing unnamed sources, reports that the preliminary investigation shows an IED made to look like a torch caused the blast. In its sources’ version the security guard called a worker who was on the seventh floor to help switch on a torch that was in a parcel, and the torch went off in the worker’s hands on the fifth floor. This is the first report to call the object an IED and it rests on unnamed sources; it also sits uneasily with the Commissioner’s remark that no parcel was involved. The Hans India reports that suspected materials possibly linked to an IED were found at the site and that investigators are checking whether they were brought in two days earlier, and News Karnataka says investigators are checking whether three batteries formed part of a mechanism. Minister Priyank Kharge, described as Home Minister by The Hans India, said on 21 October that it is not yet clear whether this was a chemical reaction or an IED and that the forensic examination should settle it. None of this is a laboratory finding.

Oneindia and DNA reported earlier that the police said there was, at that point, no confirmed evidence of a deliberate attack. IANS reports a suo motu case by Pulakeshinagar police, with no specific sections registered at the time of its report. The Hans India says the suo motu case was registered against the building owner and the contractor, and News Karnataka says Pulakeshinagar police have formed special teams. Public TV and The Federal Karnataka report later on 22 October that Pulakeshinagar police registered an FIR under Sections 61 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (criminal conspiracy and common intention, as Public TV describes them) and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. We found no police statement or copy of the FIR, so please read the sections as reported, not confirmed. The Hans India reported the suo motu case against the building owner and the contractor; we do not know whether this FIR is the same case.

Response

The Anti-Terrorism Cell, the Internal Security Division, the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad and forensic teams went to the site (Free Press Journal, Oneindia, ANI). Free Press Journal says this was a precaution. The Logical Indian notes that the presence of the anti-terror unit should not be read as proof of terrorism. All materials seized at the site have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the police are waiting for its report. The police have questioned the building owner; that is routine and does not by itself mean any wrongdoing (The Logical Indian, ANI). Minister Kharge asked people on 21 October not to believe rumours until the laboratory report arrives. News Karnataka, Siasat and The Hans India report on 22 October that the National Investigation Agency has asked Bengaluru police for the case details and preliminary reports and may inspect the site before deciding further action. Siasat says the scene-of-crime and forensic reports have been shared with the agency, and The Hans India says it is likely to take up the probe. ETV Bharat Kannada and Public TV report later on 22 October that NIA officials visited the spot, inspected it and collected preliminary information from the East Division police, while The Federal Karnataka says the agency may take the case over if IED use is confirmed. We found no NIA or police statement, and no report that the agency has registered its own case. Siasat and The Hans India also report that the security guard says an anonymous caller asked him to receive a parcel described as a torch, and that he and a painter were trying to open or switch it on when it blew up; police are said to be tracing the caller and how the parcel arrived. The News Minute, citing the Indian Express, adds that CCTV reportedly shows an unidentified person delivering it. These accounts come from press reports based on investigators, and they sit uneasily with the Commissioner’s earlier remark that no parcel was involved, which has not been withdrawn. Public TV adds that the police are looking into whether a contractor removed early in the construction, or a personal dispute with the building owner, has any link; it calls this a line of inquiry, not a finding. The civic body (GBA) has asked for details of the building, and the local MLA says action will follow if it was built illegally (ETV Bharat Kannada, Public TV). Country and Politics adds that police are questioning the building owner and the occupants of other flats. IANS notes that the blast came during the Vijaya Dashami festivities, which has drawn the attention of the authorities.

Why this matters to people near a building site

Whatever the laboratory finds, the case touches things that every neighbour of a building site should know. A blast on an upper floor of a building where families already live can hurt people who have nothing to do with the work. The first question residents ask is also the right one to ask the police: what was the object, and how did it get in?

Building sites hold more hazards than people think. Rechargeable batteries and power tools, gas cylinders for cutting and welding, paint and thinners, diesel generators and, on some jobs, detonators and explosives for rock-breaking all sit around casual workers. None of these has been named as the cause in Bengaluru; we list them only because they are the ordinary reasons a site can explode. Our guide on lithium-ion battery fires explains how swollen or hot cells can fail suddenly. Our case on the Fatehpur Malwan house explosion shows how long a cause can stay open after a blast.

What to do

• Do not pick up, open, move or switch on an unknown bag, box, torch, battery device or parcel. This applies on a site, on a road and in a stairwell. If a parcel arrives that you did not order, or a caller keeps asking you to open or switch it on, refuse it and call 112; you owe nobody a demonstration. Leave an unknown object where it is and walk away. If you have already moved it, put it down gently and leave.
• Report it at once. Call 112, the single emergency number in Karnataka, and say where it is, what it looks like and who has touched it. Tell the site supervisor, building owner or society office, who should keep people back. Do not take photographs from close up and do not crowd round. Give the call-taker your location first.
• Clear the area calmly. If something has gone off, leave by the stairs, not the lift, and move to the open assembly point. Do not go back for belongings. Our evacuation plan guide shows how to set routes and meeting points.
• Blast injuries: first aid while help is on the way. Call 108 for an ambulance. Press firmly on any bleeding with a clean cloth and keep pressing. Do not pull out anything stuck in the wound. For a burn, hold it under cool running water for about 20 minutes and cover it loosely with a clean cloth, with no ointment, ice or toothpaste. If a finger or hand has been cut off, wrap the part in clean damp cloth, put it in a plastic bag and keep that bag cool, not directly on ice, and send it with the patient. Keep the person still and warm and talk to them. Many blast victims also have ringing ears or head injuries, so do not let them walk off. See our basic first aid guide.
• Contractors and owners: keep a register of batteries, cylinders and chemicals on the site; store cylinders upright and away from welding; keep detonators and explosives only with a licensed handler, never on a building site that has residents. Do not allow unknown bags or items to be carried up. Control entry with a gate register and check that the security guard knows the 112 number.
• Residents near a site: note who is working, report anything unusual to the building owner or police, and do not share unverified “bomb” messages on WhatsApp. They cause panic and can hamper the police.

These steps are general safety advice. They are not taken from the police and none of them is a finding about this case.

What is still not known

The police have given a cause and a motive, but several things are still open. We have not seen a forensic report, a copy of the FIR or any court order, so the findings rest on police statements carried by the press. Reports differ on the hour and floor of the blast, on which of the two injured men was the guard and which the worker, and on how the parcel reached the site. We do not know whether the NIA has registered a case of its own, whether the FIR sections reported by Kannada outlets on 22 October stand, or how the accused will be charged. ThePrint says the circumstances of the parcel’s delivery and the personal disputes behind the attack are still being looked into. No death has been reported. Last checked on 28 October 2026.

More on Bengaluru: see our Bengaluru fire and emergency safety guide for fire brigade numbers, every fire station and the local risks to know.