Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Chandar RishideoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The application for regular bail is rejected.

Summary

The petitioners, four residents of Sonbarsa village, were arrested in connection with a case registered under sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that they participated in the assault and murder of a woman who was the daughter‑in‑law of the informant. The petitioners contended that they were not members of the victim’s sasural, had no motive, were falsely implicated, and highlighted a three‑day delay in filing the FIR as well as their clean antecedent record. The prosecution relied on the FIR, recorded statements of witnesses, confessions recorded in the case diary, and the SDPO’s finding that the case was true. After hearing both sides, the Court found the material evidence against the petitioners substantial and declined to grant regular bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted to the accused under sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged murder and the evidence on record.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • murder
  • assault
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal procedure
  • false implication
  • delay in FIR

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76639 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
           1.     Chandar Rishideo S/O Prem Lal Rishideo
           2.    Indula Devi W/O Chandar Rishideo
           3.    Arun Rishideo S/O Maheshwar Rishideo @ Maheshwari Rishideo
           4.     Sanichari Devi W/O Arun Rishideo
                  All residents of Village- Sonbarsa, Ward No. 06, P.S.- Shankarpur, District-
                  Madhepura
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s       :      Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
                                                   Ms. Pooja Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                      1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                   2. The petitioners have preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Shankarpur P.S. Case

                   no.21 of 2025 registered under sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of

                   the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                        3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that her daughter who was in her sasural was abused and

                   assaulted by the seven named accused persons including the

                   four petitioners herein. She was assaulted with lathi, rod etc.

                   which led to her death. Thereafter, it is stated that she was

                   burnt/cremated and her body was disposed of.

                                        4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76639 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      the petitioners are not the members of her family in her sasural.

                      They have no concern with the victim’s sasural and have been

                      falsely implicated in the case for reasons best known to the

                      informant. There is an unexplained delay of three days in

                      lodging of the FIR. The petitioners are in custody since

                      19.3.2025 and 25.3.2025 and have no criminal antecedent.

                      Chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.

                      for the State.

                                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioners

                      in the FIR, the witnesses whose statements have been recorded

                      in paragraph nos.6, 7 and 11 having supported the prosecution

                      case, the accused having confessed their crime as recorded in

                      paragraph nos.26, 27, 55 and 56 of the case diary and the

                      S.D.P.O. having found the case to be true as recorded in

                      paragraph no.47 of the case diary, the Court is not inclined to

                      enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected.



                                                  (Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.