Patna High Court
Chhotelal DubeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Chhotelal Dubey, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act alleged a bomb explosion at his residence. He claimed he was not present at the time and that the house, usually locked, could have been accessed by a third party. The State opposed the bail, pointing to the bomb disposal squad’s recovery of a large quantity of explosive material from the petitioner’s house and noting six prior criminal antecedents. The court considered the material recovery, the inference of criminal intent, and the petitioner’s antecedents. Concluding that the circumstances did not merit bail, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the recovery of explosive material from his house.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Explosive Substances Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Explosive Substances Act
- bomb explosion
- criminal antecedents
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69660 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2025 Thana- KUNDWACHAINPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Chhotelal Dubey S/o- Kapildeo Dubey R/o- Jatwaliya Ps- Kundwa Chainpur
Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prateek Tandon
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
3. Allegation in the first information report relates to
bomb explosion in the house of the petitioner whereafter police
personnel reached at his house and found stuff scattered and
also found smell of gun gunpowder coming from inside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not present at the house at the relevant time and
his involvement is not there in the present occurrence. It has
also been submitted that the house normally used to remain
locked and there is all possibility of someone else planting the
explosives.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69660 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by
learned A.P.P. for the State on the ground that the FIR itself
indicates that the incident was investigated by the bomb
disposal squad and the FSL team and it was found that the
explosive material/ bomb was kept near the box in the house of
Chhotelal Dubey which broke and exploded. It also appears
from the perusal of the case diary that a large quantity of
explosive material i.e bomb was kept in the said house of the
petitioner which leads to an inference that the same was kept
with some criminal intent.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the fact that there is a
recovery of explosive material from the house of the petitioner
in the presence of bomb squad and also considering the fact that
the petitioner has as many as six criminal antecedents, I am not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected in connection the Kundwa Chainpur P.S.
Case No. 107 of 2025.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69660 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
Checking your session…