Bengaluru Suspected IED Blast: Police Examine 100-Plus CCTV Feeds, Form Five Special Teams

Investigators are awaiting the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report as they focus on establishing how the explosive materials were procured, who delivered the parcel that triggered the explosion and whether others were involved.

Police have recorded statements from the two people injured in the incident and are pursuing leads gathered during questioning. However, investigators have reportedly encountered inconsistencies in the account given by one of the injured men, Allauddin, who has been discharged from hospital.

According to police, Allauddin initially said that a man had handed him the parcel, but also stated that it had been left near the under-construction building and that he picked it up from there. Investigators are working to verify his account and reconstruct the sequence of events.

The other injured person, Suraj, is reportedly not yet in a condition to provide a statement. Police intend to question him when his health permits.

Rahman, the owner of the building where the explosion occurred, has denied involvement in the incident and said he had no knowledge of it. He has also not provided information about any possible personal dispute that could have led to the blast.

The East Division Deputy Commissioner of Police is supervising the investigation, which is examining CCTV footage, witness statements and other available evidence.

NIA Seeks Report from Bengaluru Police

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has sought a report from Bengaluru Police regarding the suspected explosion and has received reports from the local police and the Scene of Crime Officers (SOCO) team.

The agency may inspect the site if further investigation is considered necessary. For now, local police and the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) are investigating the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Preliminary information suggests that the suspected IED was concealed inside a box delivered to the building as a parcel. An unidentified caller allegedly contacted security staff and instructed them to receive the box, claiming it contained a torchlight.

The security guard reportedly followed the instructions and brought the box inside the building. The explosion occurred after the box was opened and a battery was switched on, according to preliminary accounts.

A painter and another person were injured in the blast. One of them reportedly lost a finger, while the other sustained minor injuries.

Investigators are attempting to trace the anonymous phone call, identify the person who instructed the security guard to accept the parcel and establish how the box reached the premises.

Investigators Examine Possible Motive

The suspected use of an IED has prompted authorities to examine whether the explosion resulted from a personal dispute or was linked to a wider conspiracy. The motive has not yet been established.

Investigators are also analysing the device and the materials recovered from the scene to determine how the explosion was triggered and whether the incident has broader security implications.

The case has attracted attention because Bengaluru houses major defence establishments, scientific institutions, research centres and manufacturing facilities, in addition to its technology industry.

Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge had urged the public on Wednesday not to believe rumours, saying authorities would need to await laboratory findings before reaching conclusions about the cause of the explosion.

The investigation remains underway, with police awaiting forensic findings and continuing efforts to identify those involved.