Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135918 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20631 of 2025 Applicant :- Satendra Goswami Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar,Barkha Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Yadav,Bheshaj Puri,G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 95 of 2025, under Section 109(1) B.N.S, police station Medical College, district Meerut, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that though the role of causing injuries with Balkati has been attributed to the applicant, but injured has not received injuries on his vital parts of the body. X- ray has also not been advised. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.03.2025 having no criminal history and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant is the Manager of blankit company. Since the accused- applicant was not working properly, therefore, one day before the occurrence, he was expelled from the company and on account of the said reason, he was having ill will with the complainant and due to the said reason on 19.03.2025 at about 3.30 PM as soon as the complainant came out of his office, the applicant attacked him on his neck and when the complainant in order to save himself put his hand in front of his face, he received injuries on his hands. It is also pointed out that Balkati, which was used in the commission of offence, has also been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The independent witness Purshottam has also made video of the said incident, which was collected by the investigating officer and made the said video as part of the case diary. The doctor in his statement has stated that injuries found on the body of the injured/complainant are grievous in nature, hence bail applicant of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the applicant is the sole accused, who has been attributed the role of assault by Balkati (sickle)and as per injury report two incised wounds have been received by the complainant, which find corroboration from the FIR. Balkati (sickle) has also been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Doctor also opined that the said injuries are grievous in nature. As on date, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the statement of the injured. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, nature of injuries and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Ishrat Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad