Patna High Court

Jitendra Rishideo@ Arvind RishideoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Summary

The petitioners, Jitendra Rishideo and Dhananjay Rishideo, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a robbery case (Section 392 IPC) and illegal arms possession (Section 27 Arms Act) arising from FIR No. 289 of 2023. The FIR named three unknown persons, but a co‑accused, Umesh Kumar Rishideo, alleged that the petitioners participated in the crime. The petitioners argued they were not named in the FIR, no stolen property was found in their possession, and they maintain innocence despite a pending bail case. The State opposed bail, relying on the co‑accused’s statement and the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after hearing, declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing that the petitioners may surrender within four weeks for the trial court to consider a regular bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the CrPC in view of the co‑accused’s statement and the nature of the offences.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 392

Subjects

anticipatory bail
robbery
illegal arms possession
Section 392 IPC
Section 27 Arms Act
co‑accused statement
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                      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

3   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 co-

          accused. 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…