Patna High Court
Dr. Jageshwar Singh KaushalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bail bonds and conditions, pending their cooperation with the investigation.
Summary
The petitioners—Dr. Jageshwar Singh Kaushal, his son Vijay Kumar Singh, and his wife Sunaina Devi—were implicated in a FIR alleging murder and multiple assaults under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Substances (B.N.S.S) Act. They contended that the allegations were vague, that no specific charge was made against Vijay, and that the charge against Sunaina was ornamental, asserting they were falsely implicated. The State opposed anticipatory bail but could not refute the claim of lack of specific allegations. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., while reserving the right to cancel bail if they fail to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the FIR containing multiple serious charges.
- Whether the petitioners have been specifically implicated in the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation is a condition for maintaining bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Substances (B.N.S.S) Act — s. 103(2), 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438, 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- false implication
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Bihar Negotiable Substances Act
- murder
- assault
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40556 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2026 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Dr. Jageshwar Singh Kaushal Son of Late Bechan Mahto @ Late Bechan
Singh Resident of Village- Baghi, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Karpurigram, District-
Samastipur.
2. Vijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Kumar Son of Jageshwar Singh Kaushal @
Jageshwar Singh Resident of Village- Baghi, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Karpurigram,
District- Samastipur.
3. Sunaina Devi Wife of Jageshwar Singh Kaushal @ Jageshwar Singh
Resident of Village- Baghi, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Karpurigram, District-
Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surya Narayan Roy
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The Investigating Officer of the case, in
compliance of the order dated 02.07.2026, is present in the
Court.
3. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 351(2), 352, 118(1), 109(1), 103(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40556 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
2/4
antecedent, petitioner no. 3 is a woman and the informant
alleges that on 15.04.2026 at 12 noon Guddu and Raushan went
out of the house to purchase some articles, but six named
accused persons incuding the petitioners along with 3-4
unknown accused intercepted them and Jageshwar (petitioner
no. 1) gave order to kill on which Ranjay assaulted Guddu by
butt of pistol causing injury on head, thereafter Ranjay assaulted
indiscriminately when he fell causing injury on chest, back and
ribs, while Mukul assaulted Raushan by an iron rod causing
injury on head, next alleges that informant along with her
husband came to save the victim but then Sunaina, Manju and
Neha came and Neha and Manju caught her husband while
Sunaina pressed his hydrocele on account of which he fell but
Sunaina kept pressing his hydrocele while Vijay assaulted her
husband by rod causing injury on head and neck thereafter
Mukul also assaulted him causing death of her husband.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
specific allegation of assault is alleged against the petitioner no.
2, namely, Vijay, it is further submitted that specific allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40556 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
3/4
of assaulting the husband of the informant is against Ranjay and
Mukul on account of which he died, it is further submitted that
as far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, she is wife of petitioner
no. 1 and mother of petitioner no. 2 as such entire family
members have been implicated including the female member of
the family. It is further submitted that it does not appear
probable that petitioner no. 3 would have caught the hydrocele
of the husband of the informant in presence of her husband and
son. It is also submitted that even the postmortem report records
the cause of dead on account of lungs and major blood vessel
injury that caused cardio respiratory arrest and the nature of
weapon used is hard and blunt. It is thus submitted that cause of
death is not on account of pressing the hydrocele of the
informant’s husband, it is next submitted that petitioner no. 1 is
implicated with an ornamental allegation that based on his order
Ranjay assaulted Guddu.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners but then is not in a position
to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that no specific allegation is alleged
against the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and allegation against
petitioner no. 3 who is a woman is ornamental.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40556 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
4/4
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with
Karpoorigram P.S. Case No. 46 of 2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. However, it is made clear that if the Investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial
Court bringing to its notice that the petitioners, despite giving
assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the investigation,
the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioners.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikram/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.