Akash Kumar Turha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62424 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2025 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Akash Kumar Turha Son of Chandeshwar Sah @ Chaneshar Sah R/O Ward No.- 22, Purab Mohalla Mirganj, P.S.- Mirsganj Distt.- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anshul, Sr. Adv For the Informant :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Adv Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi,Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-11-2025 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 101 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, the petitioner had fired thrice at the informant on a trivial issue.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the injury report, it is evident that the informant has received three fire arm injuries i.e., two on his face and third
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62424 of 2025(4) dt.27-11-2025 2/2 on his left thumb. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.03.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of one case. It is further submitted that the injuries were caused by a firearm and are on a vital part of the body, hence, he does not deserve the liberty of bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing the custody period of one year, if so advised.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jyoti/- U T