HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32905 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of accused- applicant Kush seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.239 of 2025 under Sections 109(1) BNS, P.S.- Pilkhuwa, District- Hapur, during pendency of trial. 3. Tersely, as per allegation contained in the FIR, the accused-applicant has caused grievous injury to the sister of the informant by hard and blunt object and the accused-applicant has also tried to strangulate the victim in order to commit her murder. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that no grievous injury has been sustained to the injured Neha but he admits the fact that one criminal case was registered against the applicant by the victim Neha herself being Case Crime No.40 of 2025 under Sections 351(2) and 115(2) BNS. Furthermore, the accused-applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since long. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submits that the accused-applicant has caused grievous injury to the injured Neha and he pressurized the victim Neha to solemnize marriage with Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashi Bhushan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kush .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) him and when she refused, the accused-applicant has caused grievous injury to her and she sustained injury on his face. He further submits that fractures were also noted in the medical/injury report of the the injured Neha. He further informed that eight fact witnesses have been named in the charge- sheet, whereas only two witnesses have been examined so far. He further contends that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 6. In the medical examination of the injured Neha at CHC, Pilkhuwa, following injuries were found: 1. A Lacerated wound of size 5cm x 0.5cm bone deep on Rt. side of the head front part, 2 cm above the Rt. eye brow. 2. A lacerated wound of size 3cm x 1cm bone deep on Rt. side of face, 1.5 cm above the eye brow. 3. Traumatic swell whole forehead. 4. Traumatic swelling of size 12cm x 11cm on Rt. side of face. 5. A reddish traumatic swelling of size 5cm x 3 cm around Rt. eye. 6. A reddish traumatic swelling of size 4cm x 3cm around left eye. 7. A reddish contusion of size 3cm x 1cm on Rt. ear pinna, bleeding from ear present. 8. Furthermore, during medical treatment, the injured Neha was also medically treated in LLRM Medical College, Meerut and following abnormalities/injuries were found before the competent authority of the Medical College, Meerut: 1. Hemorrhagic contusions in left pareital region. 2. Subdural hemorrhage in left fronto-perieto-temporal regions causing mass effect and midline shift as described above. 3. Subarachnoid hemorrhage in high fronto-parietal region. 4. Fracture of right zygomatic arch. 5. Fracture of nasal process of right maxillary bone. The medical report duly corroborate the statement of the injured Neha in this case 7. From perusal of the medical report, it appears that the victim has sustained grievous injuries. A specific and distinct role has been assigned to the applicant in the First Information Report as well as in the statement of the victim recorded before the Investigating Officer. Further, after framing of BAIL No. 32905 of 2026 2 the charge, the statements of the informant (PW-1) and the injured witness (PW-2) have been recorded before the trial court. Perusal of the relevant material further indicates that, prior to the present incident, the applicant had committed an offence against the same victim, in respect of which Case Crime No. 40 of 2025 was registered under Sections 351(1) and 115(2) of the BNS. It is alleged that after being released on bail in the said case, the applicant again committed an offence against the same victim, who is stated to be working in an MR company. Thus, there appears to be a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, the applicant may intimidate or pressurize the victim. 8. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced by both the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the grievous injuries sustained by the victim, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the repetition of the alleged offence after his release on bail, and the stage of the trial, I am of the considered view that no reliable or substantial new ground has been made out for grant of second bail to the applicant. 9. Hence, second bail application of the applicant is rejected. 10. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial as per earlier direction given in the order dated 09.03.2026 rejecting the first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45415 of 2025. October 1, 2026 Asha (Santosh Rai,J.) BAIL No. 32905 of 2026 3 Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad