Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130080 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24047 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. 2. By means of this bail application, applicant Rajpoot, who is involved in Case Crime No. 722 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 117(2), 118(1), 109, 3(5) BNS, police station Faridpur, district Bareilly seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant got an F.I.R. lodged on 14.09.2024 at 07:19 PM mentioning therein that incident took place on 14.09.2024 at about 08:00 AM whereas injured-Bharat Singh was medically examined on the same day at 07:45 AM, hence prosecution case is not liable to be believed. It is further submitted that the incident has not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, the injured Bharat Singh has received injury on account of pushing him by the street cattle. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.04.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that:- 4.1. In the F.I.R., general role of assaulting the complainant and his brother with lathi and danda (sticks) has been assigned to all the accused persons and in addition, the specific role of causing injury to injured-Bharat Singh with sharp-edged weapon has been attributed to the applicant-Rajpoot. 4.2. Referring the medical examination report of Bharat Singh, it is pointed out that he has received following four injuries: (i) I/W 6X 0.5cm scalp deep 7 cm around left ear left side skull. (ii) I/S 4 cm x 3 cm left sides skull just below injury no. 1 KUO, (iii) Contusion 3 x 2 cm posterior aspect left forearm 0.5 cm above left wrist joint, (iv) Complaint of pain left side chest. KUO. 4.3. As per the supplementary medical report of the injured Bharat Singh, he has received following injuries : (i) Fracture of temporal and parietal bone and left side of skull seen. (ii) Patient hearing left ear perforated tympanic membrane (traumatic) with mixed hearing loss. 4.4. it is also pointed out that complainant-Radha Krishan has received following three injuries: (i) I/W 2.5 X 0.5 cm scalp deep left side skull 7 cm above left ear. KUO (ii) Abrasion 1 X 1 cm broad aspect of right hand 1 cm above, bone of little finger. KUO. (iii) Multiple abrasion 5x3 cm posterior aspect of right posture C right elbow. KUO. 4.5. The allegation of the prosecution is corroborated from the medical evidence. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the injured-Bharat has received incised wound on his vital part of the body as noted above, which is corroborated from the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. As per the supplementary medical report of the injured-Bharat Singh, his temporal and parietal bone was found fractured and injury nos. 1 and 2 are grievous in nature. The injured-Bharat Singh has also assigned the role of assault with sharp-edged weapon to the applicant. The complainant-Radha Krishna has also received three injuries and he in his statement has supported the prosecution case, hence, as on date, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the statement of the injured (Bharat Singh and Radha Krishna). So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged on 14.09.2024 at 07:19 PM and medical examination of the injured was conducted on the same day at 07:45 AM are concerned, I find that in the F.I.R., it is mentioned that incident took place at about 8:00 AM. It appears after the incident, both the injured persons went to the police station and thereafter, injured Bharat Singh was brought by HG 1828 Jay Singh for his medical examination and he was medically examined on the same day at 07:45 AM. Similarly complainant / injured- Radha Krishna was also brought by HG 1828 Jay Singh for his medical examination and he was medically examined on the same day at 09:30 AM, hence there is no inconsistency in the prosecution case. 6. 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 injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 9. Copy of this order be sent the complainant within a week for information. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad