Patna High Court
Kameshwar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to petitioners Kameshwar Sah and Dilkhush Sah, subject to bond and conditions.
Summary
The petitioners Kameshwar Sah and Dilkhush Sah (also known as Dilkush Kumar) were named in FIR No.555 of 2025 for offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, including attempted murder, assault and arson. They applied for anticipatory bail, but the second petitioner, Shankar Sah, withdrew his application, leaving the petition for the remaining two. The court observed that the allegations against them were vague, general and omnibus, and that they were merely family members of the principal accused, Vinod Kumar, who was alleged to have fired on the informant’s mother. Both petitioners claimed clean antecedents. Considering the lack of specific incriminating material and their clean records, the court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 3, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners Kameshwar Sah and Dilkhush Sah despite general and omnibus allegations.
- Whether the familial relationship to the principal accused warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 326(f), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- general and omnibus allegation
- family members of accused
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36566 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-555 Year-2025 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura
======================================================
1. Kameshwar Sah S/o Yogendra Sah R/o Village - Dharhara, Ward No. 03,
P.S. -Murliganj, District - Madhepura.
2. Shankar Sah S/o Late SobhiSah @ Late Shomi Sah R/o Village - Dharhara,
Ward No. 03, P.S. -Murliganj, District - Madhepura.
3. Dilkhush Sah @ Dilkush Kumar S/o Kameshwar Sah R/o Village -
Dharhara, Ward No. 03, P.S. -Murliganj, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Surya Narayan Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw bail
application with regard to petitioner no. 2 namely, Shankar
Sah.
3. Request allowed.
4. Accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail stands
dismissed as withdrawn only qua petitioner no. 2 namely,
Shankar Sah.
5. Now, this petition for anticipatory bail survives
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36566 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/4
only with regard to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 namely,
Kameshwar Sah and Dilkhush Sah @ Dilkush Kumar.
6. The both above-named accused-petitioners,
named in the F.I.R., are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 555 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 352, 109, 351(2), 351(3), 326(f), 303(2) and
3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the
‘B.N.S.’).
7. As per FIR, accused persons alongwith
petitioners alleged to open fire upon the informant during
course of occurrence and also assaulted the informant and
others.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the allegation against the
petitioner nos. 1 and 3 is very much general and omnibus in
nature. It is pointed out that just to aggravate the allegation,
petitioner no. 1 was alleged to put the house of the
informant on fire, but through FIR itself, it has been stated
that soon after the occurrence, it was controlled by the
neighbours.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36566 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
3/4
9. It is submitted that petitioner no. 3 is facing
general and omnibus allegation and implication of
petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are only for the reason that they are
relative/family members of petitioner no.2 and one Vinod
Kumar, who specifically alleged to cause fire-arm injury
upon the mother of the informant hitting to her knee. Both
petitioners claimed clean antecedent.
10. Learned A.P.P. for the State is present.
11. Mr. Surya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel
appearing for the informant, while opposing the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners, could not disputed the
aforesaid submission as advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
12. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and
by taking note of the fact as both petitioners appears
implicated prima facie with the present crime in question
with very much general and omnibus allegation as they are
the immediate family members of the co-accused Vinod
Kumar, who alleged to open fire upon the mother of the
informant, accordingly, above-named petitioner nos. 1 and
3, who are the men of clean antecedent, in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36566 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
4/4
arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this
order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura/concerned
court in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 555 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.