Suspicious device made safe in Numurkah; man, 66, charged

The discovery followed an allegation that a man fired a gun towards a vehicle in the northern Victorian town two days earlier. Saturday’s development was the warrant search, device discovery and arrest—not a report of fresh gunfire that day. Police have described the events as part of the same investigation, without explaining any more specific connection between the device and the alleged shooting.⁠1⁠4

Detectives searched a property on Murray Avenue, according to reproductions of the police account published by Mirage News and The National Tribune. Numurkah lies north of Shepparton, roughly two-and-a-half hours’ drive north of Melbourne.⁠3⁠4⁠1

The police wording is narrow: officers located a “suspicious device” and the Bomb Response Unit “rendered the device safe.” It establishes that specialists attended and dealt with the object. It does not say how they did so, describe its construction or provide a forensic finding about its contents.⁠4

That distinction matters. “Made safe” is not another way of saying a device exploded, nor does it establish that officers carried out a controlled detonation. The available account does not confirm either. Calling the object a functioning bomb would go further than the evidence permits, even though an explosive-substance charge is among the allegations against the man.⁠4⁠1

There is also an unresolved location detail. The police account reproduced by Mirage News places the warrant search on Murray Avenue; 7NEWS reporting places an emergency response on Bitcon Street at about 11:30am. Those accounts do not explain how the locations connect. The Bitcon Street time therefore cannot safely be assigned to the Murray Avenue search, and neither a street number nor a verified warrant-execution time is available.⁠4⁠2

The public account rests on news reporting and reproductions of a police announcement, rather than an independently verified complete official release. Those sources establish the broad sequence, but leave important gaps about the device, the precise location of the specialist response and the relationship between the objects found and the earlier allegation.

ABC News reported that the man was charged with reckless conduct endangering serious injury, and possessing and making an explosive substance. He also faces charges of possessing Victoria Police equipment without authority, cultivating and possessing cannabis, and possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption.⁠1

The reported account does not identify the police equipment or the prohibited weapon. Nor does it establish whether anyone was injured in the alleged firearm incident. The wording of the reckless-conduct charge is not confirmation that a serious injury occurred; equally, the absence of an injury report is not confirmation that nobody was hurt.⁠1

All of those charges are allegations to be tested in court, not findings of guilt. They also cannot substitute for a technical account of the suspicious device: an explosive-substance charge, on its own, does not establish that the object found during the search contained a working explosive.

The man was remanded to appear at Shepparton Magistrates’ Court on Sunday, 1 November, the day after his arrest, according to ABC’s report. That is a reported court listing, not a verified account of a completed hearing. No subsequent bail decision, plea or disposition has been established.⁠1

The immediate specialist task is complete: the device was made safe. The two questions that would materially advance this account are still unresolved—what examination established about the object, and what happened when the man’s case came before the court.