Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135034 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24804 of 2025 Applicant :- Guruvachan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. By means of this bail application, applicant Guruvachan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 283 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 117(3) BNS, police station Nanauta, district Saharanpur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is injured also, got an F.I.R. lodged on 06.12.2024 for the offence under Sections 115(2), 352, 117(3) BNS against the applicant Guruvachan, co-accused Shivam and Rampal making allegation inter alia that on 04.12.2024 at 07:30 P.M., accused persons came to his house and started abusing. When he forbidden them, they started beating him with sticks. The applicant Guruvachan attacked him with knife, due to which a part of his left ear got cut off. When his wife came to save him, they started beating her too. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. of the incident was lodged after two days. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Referring the medical examination report of the injured, it is submitted that though left ear lobe of the injured was found missing but a knife cannot cut the ear lobe. It is also submitted that though in the injury report, it is mentioned that injury no. 1 is grievous in nature but in view of Section 116 BNS, 2023, the said injury will not come under the definition of grievous injury. Referring the statement of doctor, who conducted the medical examination of the injured, it is argued that the doctor has stated inter alia that upper part of injured's left ear was cut off and missing, hence same is not corroborated from the medical report. 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 13.12.2024 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of contents of the F.I.R. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant is only accused, who has been assigned the role of causing grievous injury to the injured with knife. It is also not in dispute that some part of the left ear of the injured was cut off and was found missing during his medical examination. Injured has also attributed the role of cutting his ear with knife to the applicant. The medical report, statement of the doctor as well as statement of the complainant/injured cannot be disbelieved at this stage. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that cutting of ear lobe will not come under the definition of "grievous hurt" is concerned, it would be useful to mention the definition of "grievous hurt", which reads thus : 116. Grievous hurt – The following kinds of hurt only 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. In the light of ingredients of Section 116 of BNS, 2023, this Court is of the view that the instant case comes under the definition of Section 116(f) BNS, 2023 which provides permanent disfiguration of the head or face. The word "disfigure" as mentioned in Section 116(f) of BNS, 2023 means to cause a person some external injury on head or face. It means damaging the figure, or changing to worse form, or reducing the beauty, or deforming. Though the injury may not affect the efficiency or functioning of the part of the face or head whether temporarily or permanently but if the face or head is deformed or cosmetic effect is caused to the disadvantage of the victim, it will amount to grievous hurt. The examples in this context may be, cutting off nose or nostrils, tearing/cutting of ears, cut inflicted by a sharp object on the cheeks, lips or face, etc. are all grievous hurts. The disfiguration must, however, be permanent and not temporary. 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, which is grievous in nature and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 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. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad