Dr. Jageshwar Singh Kaushal v. The State Of Bihar
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, DistrictSamastipur. 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, DistrictSamastipur. ... ... 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 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
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
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.
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