Patna High Court
Jai Narain Singh @ Jai Narayan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to a bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance.
Summary
The petitioners, an 85‑year‑old father‑in‑law and his sister‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law, applied for anticipatory bail in a case concerning the death of the informant’s daughter, who was married to their son‑in‑law. The FIR, registered under IPC sections 302, 201, 120B and 34, alleged foul play, while the prosecution highlighted the absence of a post‑mortem and unexplained injuries reported by the hospital. The petitioners contended that the death was an accidental fall from a terrace, that the deceased was mentally unstable, and that the children of the deceased gave no indication of any crime. The court examined the petitioners’ advanced age, the petitioner’s paralysis, the clean antecedents, and the lack of substantive evidence in the police final report. Considering these factors, the court granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions of regular appearance and possible cancellation for non‑compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 of the CrPC in the absence of a post‑mortem report and with alleged injuries.
- Whether the petitioners’ age, health, and clean antecedents justify bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- IPC offences
- health condition
- post‑mortem
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19343 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2021 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Jai Narain Singh @ Jai Narayan Singh Son of Late Kamla Prasad Singh R/o
- Jyoti Kunj, New Punaichak, West Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Shri
Krishnapuri, District - Patna
2. Sarita Singh @ Rinku Devi Wife of Shri Satyendra Singh R/o - Jyoti Kunj,
New Punaichak, West Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Shri Krishnapuri, District -
Patna
3. Satyendra Singh Son of Shri Jai Narain Singh R/o - Jyoti Kunj, New
Punaichak, West Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Shri Krishnapuri, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awdhesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vijayansh Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shashikant Amar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners as well as
the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 302 of 2021 in a
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302,
201, 120B/34 of the IPC.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant’s
daughter was married to the co-accused person, Devendra
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19343 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
2/5
Narayan Singh in the year 2000. She was subjected to mental
torture by her husband and in-laws due to his illicit affair. On
26.10.2021, the informant was informed about his daughter’s
death, whereafter upon query made by the informant, the
petitioners stated that the deceased died due to accidental fall,
but the informant came to know at his level that she was done to
death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the
outset that the petitioners are father-in-law aged about 85 years,
sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively. It
has been further submitted that marriage of the deceased with
co-accused Devendra Narayan Singh dates back to the year
2000 and after 21 years of marriage, the present FIR has been
lodged that too after delay of seven days of the information
received by the informant that his daughter had died. It is further
submitted that the deceased was actually being treated in some
addiction-cum-rehabilitation centre and she was not mentally
very stable and as a matter of fact, she accidentally fell down
from the terrace on 17.10.2021. Thereafter, she was admitted in
Ruban Hospital, Patna by petitioner nos. 2 and 3 for treatment. It
is further submitted that both the children of the deceased aged
about 20 years and 16 years, have not stated about any foul play
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19343 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
3/5
by the accused persons in their statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. or of any foul play. As a matter of fact, some
missing report had been filed earlier too, with regard to the
deceased having gone away from her house while living in
Banaras.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that after
investigation, the police had submitted a final form on account
of lack of evidence, however, differing with the said final form,
cognizance has been taken by the learned jurisdictional
Magistrate.
6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant however, vehemently opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail of the petitioners on the ground that no
postmortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased
and the reports of the Ruban Hospital indicates certain injuries
on her body which have not been sufficiently explained.
7. In response to the same, it has been submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that explanation for
injuries is that she had fallen from the terrace and the
postmortem has not been conducted on account of the fact that
the informant had already been informed about the death of the
deceased. It has specifically been averred in paragraph 18 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19343 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
4/5
bail application that the management of Ruban Hospital has
informed the then, SHO, Patliputra regarding treatment of the
victim but the police did not respond to the same as such, it has
been submitted that it was actually petitioner nos. 2 and 3 who
had taken the deceased to Ruban Hospital for treatment and an
information was also given to the SHO. The petitioners are
persons of clean antecedents and have been made accused on the
fact that they are family members of the husband of the
deceased.
8. Besides the facts and circumstances of the case, it
is taken into consideration that petitioner no. 1 is an old man
aged about 85 years suffering with paralysis (Annexure-2).
Further, considering the fact that these petitioners have been
made accused on account of their relationship with the husband
of the deceased with whom she had some matrimonial dispute
on account of his alleged illicit relationship with petitioner no. 2
and noting the fact that the husband of petitioner no. 2,
Satyendra Singh (petitioner no. 3), has also been made accused
in this case, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19343 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
5/5
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned court below where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 302 of
2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438
(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S., subject to the condition
that:
(I) The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 shall appear on each
and every date and if the petitioners do not appear on two
consecutive dates fixed in the case without any substantial and
satisfactory reason thereby delaying the trial, the learned court
below would be at liberty to cancel their bail bonds.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…