HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9509 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station Magorra, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 5. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The case of sudden quarrel led to the said offence being committed by the applicant. It was the applicant only, who had got the treatment of the victim conducted, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. The injuries are simple in nature. 6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Gupta, Rajat Kumar Shukla, Vandana Gupta, Vinay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajai Mani Tiwari, G.A. Vishnu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is permanent disfigurement of the victim as her lower lip was severed from her mouth. The tooth of the victim are clearly visible and the said injury is beyond repair. 8. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that in any society, beauty is the asset of a lady, if she is deprived of her natural looks which falls within the category of extreme mental depravity. In the instant case, the applicant has permanently disfigured the face of the victim, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Section 116 of BNS categorically provides following kinds of hurt which are designated as “grievous”, namely :- (a) Emasculation. (b) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. (c)Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. (d) Privation of any member or joint. (e) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. (f) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. (g) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. (h) Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of fifteen days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. 10. The instant case falls within the category of Section 116 (4) of B.NS., as such, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the injuries sustained by the victim, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. BAIL No. 9509 of 2025 2 State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 12, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 9509 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad