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. Saurabh/- (Partha Sarthy, J) U T