Jitendra Rishideo@ Arvind Rishideo v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8410 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2023 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
Jitendra Rishideo@ Arvind Rishideo S/O-Rajo Rishidev@ Rajo Rishideo@ Raju Rishideo Resident of village- Bairyahi Sirsiya Hanumanganj, ward number- 02, P.S.-Bhargama, District- Araria.
2.
Dhananjay Rishideo@ Dhanai Kumar S/O- Late Lakshmi Rishideo Resident of village- Kushmaul, ward number- 04, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 289 of 2023 lodged on 14.08.2023, for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-V, Supaul.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against three unknown persons. It has been alleged in the FIR that three unknown persons armed with gun and iron rod came and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8410 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 stopped the informant and assaulted him and snatched Rs.5,250, one mobile phone as well as his motorcycle and then fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel submits that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and their name has figured in this case on the statement of coaccused. Counsel also submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. He further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioners are not clean as there is one case pending against them in which they are on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that in the rejection order, it has been acknowledged by the Sessions Judge that during the course of investigation, the accused namely Umesh Kumar Rishideo was arrested by the police and he categorically stated that he along with the present petitioners have committed the crime.
6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected.
7. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners that if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8410 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 they surrenders before the concerned Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on their surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioners has been rejected by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the merit of this case. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T