Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9048 (JHR)

PRAKASH TURI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1265/2026 · 2026-03-13

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:6747 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1265 of 2026 ---- 1.Prakash Turi, aged about 33 years, son of Shibu Turi 2.Karwa Devi @ Tarwa Devi aged about 53 years wife of Shibu Turi 3.Shibu Turi, aged about 54 years son of Bakiya Turi, All are resident of Village Darid PO Uttasara, PS Petarbar, Dist. Bokaro .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Asha Devi wife of Prakash Turi, daughter of late Fuleshwar Turi, resident of Village David, PO Uttasara, PS Petarbar, Dist. Bokaro .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Pinki Kumari, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Arup Kr Dey, Advocate ---- 2/13.03.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioners and for State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Petarbar PS Case No.182 of 2025, for offence registered under section 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 85, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 happened to be husband and petitioner no.2 happened to be mother in law, and petitioner no.3 is father in law of the informant and the case is registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 85, 3(5) of BNS, 2023. She submits that there are general and omnibus allegations and now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and the husband and wife are residing together and that 2026:JHHC:6747 2 statement is made in paragraph no.15 of the petition. She also submits that on the basis of compromise the second anticipatory bail petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge however that was withdrawn in view of the fact that it has been orally observed by the learned Sessions Judge on second ABP petition he will not entertain the same as he has already rejected the anticipatory bail of the petitioner earlier and the order passed in first ABP is subject matter in the present ABA application. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute. 5. Considering that in paragraph no.15 statements are there to the effect that husband and wife are residing together and the petitioners happened to be husband, mother in law and father in law of the informant, and there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and further in light of the compromise the petitioners are directed to surrender before learned court within two weeks from today and learned court shall release petitioners, above named, on such terms and conditions as well as sureties as learned court may deem fit and proper. 6. A.B.A. No.1265 of 2026 is disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 13.03.2026 SI/