Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119890 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24293 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Chaturvedi,Subhash Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this application, applicant-Rajpal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 118(2) B.N.S., Police Station Malawan, District Etah, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. As per prosecution case, in brief, informant Ravindra, who is husband of the injured-victim got a first information report lodged on 17.05.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 118(2) B.N.S., 2023 against Rajpal (applicant), Rajkumari (wife of the applicant), Kushboo and Surjeet, with the allegations inter alia that on 17.05.2025 at about 8 A.M. when her wife was filling water at the tap outside her house, his elder brother's wife-Rajkumari, niece-Kushboo, nephew- Surjeet and elder borther-Rajpal (applicant) abused and beat his wife and cut his wife's tongue and also threatened to kill her. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to some family dispute between the applicant and his brother. Referring the injury report of the injured-victim, it is submitted that the incident in question has not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. Role of cutting tongue has not been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the said incident. Much emphasis has been given by contending that now a compromise took place between the parties concerned and the complainant sent an affidavit dated 16.06.2025 in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant who has no criminal history to his credit is languishing in jail since 18.05.2025, therefore he may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the informant and injured, there is a specific allegation against applicant-Rajpal that he grabbed Seema's hair and started saying that she talks too much, cut her tongue. Thereafter Raj Kumari cut her tongue with teeth and scratched her mouth with her nails. Her tongue got cut and fell apart. The said allegations are also corroborated from the injury report of the injured, hence, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. Here it is relevant to note the injury received by the injured, which are as under:- (i) Multiple abrasion present over both side of face of different sizes. (ii) Lacerated wound 2.8 cm x 1.5 cm over left anterolateral aspect of tongue with missing left anterolateral tip of tongue. The injury No. (ii) was kept under observation for X- Ray and was also referred for expert opinion. As per supplementary medico-legal report dated 13.06.2025, injury No. (ii) was found grievous in nature. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the offence is heinous in nature. Injury No. 2 is grievous in nature. If applicant had not been caught the hair of the injured, Raj Kumari would not be able to cut the tongue of injured with her teeth. The statements of the informant and the injured cannot be disbelieved at this stage. So far as alleged affidavit of compromise is concerned, the same is not a part of case diary. The authenticity of said affidavit is a matter of trial, which can be adjudicated in the trial at the appropriate stage, hence the same cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 10. 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 :- 22.7.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad