Patna High Court
Md. Sohail @ Md. Sohail Sheikh @ Sohail SheikhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered a bail application filed by Md. Sohail, who is charged under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1984 for a bomb explosion that injured two minor children in Sherghati, Gaya. The petitioner asserted that he has a clean antecedent, was falsely implicated, and that the bomb was concealed with the consent of his uncle, Jumman Mistry, who had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, arguing that Jumman’s bail was based on his being a victim and that the petitioner’s alleged involvement remains serious. After hearing both sides, the Court held that the seriousness of the offence and the risk to public safety outweighed the petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, the Court refused to grant regular bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1984 given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case?
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and clean antecedent warrants the grant of bail?
Legislation cited
- Explosive Substances Act, 1984 — s. 3, 4, 5
Subjects
- bail
- Explosive Substances Act
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- minor injury
- public safety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15303 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2025 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Md. Sohail @ Md. Sohail Sheikh @ Sohail Sheikh S/o- Md. Hasan @ Bhola
Shaikh R/v- Ward No 16, Ramna, P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1984.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since
10.12.2025. It is further submitted that during pendency of the
instant bail application, the petitioner was remanded in one case,
as such, petitioner was a person with clean antecedent when the
bail application was filed but subsequently he came to be
implicated in one more case. It is next submitted that informant
alleges that on 07.01.2025, he received an information that bomb
exploded in the house of Jumman Mistry causing injury to two
minor children, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15303 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
and on investigation, it transpired that the bomb which had
exploded in the clinic of Dr. Tapeshwar Prasad, in the said
occurrence, Danish Iqbal, Md. Sohail and Chhotu were involved.
Further, the accused persons with consent of uncle of Sohail, i.e.,
Jumman Mistry had concealed the leftover bomb in his house
which exploded on 07.01.2025 in which the minor aged about 9
and 11 years were injured, accordingly, the house of Danish Iqbal
and petitioner was raided but the accused were absconding.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that it is not the
case of the prosecution that petitioner threw bomb rather allegation
is that he with consent of his uncle, namely, Jumman Mistry had
concealed the bomb in his house which exploded causing injury to
two minor children. It is next submitted that Jumman Mistry had
approached this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.
20723 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed vide order dated
20.08.2025 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. It
is, thus, submitted that if Jumman Mistry has been granted bail,
the case of the petitioner is on a better footing for the reason that it
was with consent of Jumman Mistry that the bomb was kept in his
house which subsequently exploded.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15303 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that from
perusal of the order dated 20.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 20723 of
2025, it would manifest that the consideration for granting bail to
Jumman Mistry was that he himself was a victim of circumstance
as a plea was taken that he was not even aware that petitioner had
concealed the bomb on his roof. It is further submitted that had
Jumman Mistry been aware that bomb has been concealed in his
house whether he would have allowed his two minor children,
aged about 9 and 11 years, to go on the roof for playing as the
children got injured when the bomb exploded.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection
with Sherghati P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025 pending in the Court of
learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati,
Gaya/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…