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.

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