Raj Kumar Turha @ Rajkumar Turha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84718 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2024 Thana- Sinha District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Raj Kumar Turha @ Rajkumar Turha S/o Hiralal Turha R/o vill - Maraha Lewad, P.S. - Sinha, Distt.- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpa Sinha 1, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner. The petitioner and his wife were having dispute on small issues. It was informed on 27.04.2024 that some occurrence has taken place with the daughter of the informant. When the informant went there, he found that his daughter was lying dead on a cot and the family members have fled away. Petitioner is the husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84718 of 2024(3) dt.06-02-2025 2/2 falsely been implicated in this case. He has got no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.05.2024.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submits that in the statement of informant, it has come that there was demand of bike and due to which the deceased was subjected to cruelty. From perusal of the post mortem report, it transpires that the doctor has found ligature mark and bruise of different size.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since petitioner is the husband, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year of custody. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T