Patna High Court
Shamshad Ali @ Shamsad AliversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
Shamshad Ali sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR (Marhaura P.S. Case No. 691 of 2025) for alleged offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 288 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The prosecution alleged that he was in possession of a large quantity of illegal firecrackers seized from his house, linking him to illegal manufacturing similar to co‑accused Aurangzeb. The petitioner contended that he had obtained permission from the District Magistrate, purchased the firecrackers legally, produced receipts, and had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner was engaged in illegal business. The High Court, after considering the documents and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. with specific conditions regarding sureties, appearance before the trial court, monthly police attendance, non‑tampering with witnesses, and abstaining from further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. despite the FIR under the Explosive Substances Act and BNS Act.
- Whether possession of firecrackers with alleged permission distinguishes the petitioner from illegal manufacturing.
- Whether the conditions imposed are appropriate and lawful.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 288
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 — s. 3, 4, 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Explosive Substances Act
- illegal firecrackers
- Section 438 CrPC
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- district magistrate permission
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.626 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-691 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
======================================================
Shamshad Ali @ Shamsad Ali S/O Late Akhtar Ali @ Late Mohammad
Akhtar Resident of village - Olhanpur, Police Station - Marhaura, District -
Saran, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Thakur Brajesh Singh, Adv.
Ms. Tooba Hera, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Ajay Kumar Jha, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Marhaura P.S. Case No. 691 of 2025 for the offence
registered under sections 3, 4 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act,
1908 and Section 288 of the BNS lodged on 14.10.2025 by the
informant, Ajay Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police got
information that Aurangzeb and Irfan are illegally
manufacturing firecrackers without any license which led to an
explosion and causing injuries. Later, Aurangzeb took the family
members to an undisclosed location. The Police thereafter
considering the election time, deployed and it came to notice
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.626 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
that another person (petitioner herein) is having illegal
firecrackers in his house. Subsequently, the place was raided and
large quantity of illegal firecrackers recovered/seized from this
petitioner’s house. In that background, he finds himself
impleaded in the FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner with the help of
Annexure-2 shows that during the Diwali time, he used to take
permission from the District Magistrate, Siwan and also
purchased firecrackers and the receipts are part of the present
petition. The submission is that he cannot be equated with
Aurangzeb who was illegally manufacturing firecrackers as it
was fully company made firecrackers with proper receipt. The
last submission is that he do not have criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that like
Aurangzeb, he was also carrying illegal business.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the fact that the documents (Annexure-2) has been provided to
show the bonafine, he do not have criminal antecedent, FIR is
there, an undertaking has been given that he shall be diligently
appearing in trial, in that background, this Court is inclined to
grant him the anticipatory bail with conditions.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.626 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
7. Let the petitioner in the event of arrest or surrender
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saran, Chhapra in connection with Marhaura P.S.
Case No. 691 of 2025 subject to condition as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioner, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every month for next six months to mark
attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be
submitted to the Court;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.626 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…