Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Aamir Akhtar @ Md. Aamir Akhtar @ Amir AkhtarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding no substantial risk of evidence tampering or flight and noting his clean antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Aamir Akhtar, was arrested after a police raid on his father’s house uncovered a large quantity of illegal firecrackers allegedly stored without a licence. He was charged under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 288 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The petitioner pleaded innocence, asserting that the shop was licensed, no specialised manufacturing equipment was recovered, and he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, arguing that the recovered crackers linked the petitioner to the offence. The court, considering the petitioner’s clean antecedent, short period of custody, and lack of evidence suggesting he would tamper with evidence, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding attendance and non‑tampering.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being charged under the Explosive Substances Act and the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
  • Whether the petitioner poses a risk of tampering with evidence or absconding.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • explosive substances
  • illegal firecrackers
  • criminal procedure
  • clean antecedent
  • evidence tampering

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90475 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-691 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Aamir Akhtar @ Md. Aamir Akhtar @ Amir Akhtar S/O Shamshad Ali @
                 Shamsad Ali 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, Advocate
                                                   Ms. Tooba Hera Pratyush, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-01-2026                          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                        2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Marhaura P.S. Case No. 691 of 2025 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance

                   Act and under Section 288 of the BNS.

                                        3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, along

                   with police officials, conducted raid at various places in the

                   village Olhanpur and at about 12:30 p.m. on 14.10.2025 reached

                   the house of co-accused Shamshad Ali. It is alleged that a large

                   quantity of illegal firecrackers was stored there without any

                   valid licence. For verification of the said information, the police

                   entered the house of Shamshad Ali, whereupon one person was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90475 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/4




          found attempting to flee but was apprehended and identified as

          the petitioner, who is the son of co-accused Shamshad Ali. It is

          further alleged that the petitioner and his father were involved in

          the purchase and sale of illegal firecrackers from their house and

          were also engaged in the manufacturing of firecrackers and

          materials used for manufacturing firecrackers were also

          recovered.

                          4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as

          alleged in the F.I.R. It is contended that the petitioner has no

          connection with the alleged place of occurrence or the recovery,

          and that the said shop belongs to the father of the petitioner,

          namely Shamshad Ali. It is further submitted that the shop is

          duly licensed, and a copy of the license has been annexed as

          Annexure P/2. Learned counsel further submits that the F.I.R. does not
          disclose recovery of any specialised manufacturing machinery, mixing units,

          whipping or moulding equipment. The materials allegedly recovered from the

          place of occurrence are stated to be commercial products. Apart from the above,

          the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since

          15.10.2025. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a bright student, which is

          evident from the marks sheet (Annexure -5). Learned counsel orally submits that

          the charge-sheet has already been submitted, there is no likelihood of the

          petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence.

                          5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90475 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                            3/4




          prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that though

          petitioner is one of the accused and from the shop of the co-

          accused the crackers and other connected materials were

          recovered. Hence, petitioner does not deserve bail..

                          6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, period of custody, keeping in view clean antecedent of

          petitioner, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also

          taking into consideration the material available on record, let the

          petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail

          bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties

          of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief

          Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chhapra in connection with

          Marhaura P.S. Case No. 691 of 2025, subject to following

          conditions:-

                          (i) One of the bailors shall be either father or

          mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn

          the affidavit in bail application.

                          (ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will

          remain present on each and every date and absence on any date

          without appropriate permission, would be a ground for

          cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.

                       (iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90475 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                                        4/4




                      witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                      for cancellation of bail.



                                              (Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Nilmani/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.