HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1447 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj, in Sessions Trial No. 536 of 2025 ( State of U.P. v. Riyaz and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), 110, 351(2), and 352 of the B.N.S., Police Station Indergarh, District Kannauj. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 is neither a speaking nor a reasoned order and is not justifiable; therefore, it is liable to be set aside. An application had been filed seeking discharge of the revisionists under Section 110 of the B.N.S. It is contended that the ingredients of Section 110 of the B.N.S. are not attracted in the present case and that the revisionists are liable to be discharged. Section 110 of the B.N.S. reads as follows: "Section 110. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the injury report of the injured Yusuf, which reflects the following injuries: "Medicological injury report: 1. LW 3x1 cm (+) over Rt. side frontal aspect of skull swelling 4x3 cm (+) fresh bleeding (+). 2. Contusion 3x1 cm (+) over Lt. side of neck joint below Lt. ear colour red. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajeev Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Riyaz And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 3. Contusion 14x2 cm (+) over Rt.Scapular region of back colour red. 4. Contusion 4x3 cm and 10x2 cm (+) over Lt. scapular regin of back colour red. Adv. X-Ray Lt. shoulder with scapular Ap 5. Contusion 14x4 cm (L) side ofmiddle of back swelling 6x8 cm (+) colour red Adv. X-Ray chest Ap. 6. Contusion 14x2 cm (+) over Rt. side lower region of back colour red. 7. Pain and swelling 4x4 cm (+) over Rt. forearm 8. Pain and swelling 3x2 cm (+) over Lt. forearm 9. Pain and swelling over ant. aspect of Rt. hand Opinion- All injuries are caused by hard and blunt object injury No. 1, 4 & 5 KUO Adv. X-Ray to CDH Injury while rest injuries simple in nture duration about fresh." Radiological Report: X-Ray Skull Ap/lateral- Show a crack fracture at Rt. fronto parietal region. X-Ray chest Ap- NAD X-Ray Lt. shoulder with scapula- Ap- NAD Supplementary report: Pt. was advised (1) X-Ray knee (2) X-Ray chest and (3) X-Ray Lt. shoulder with scapular Pt. was referred to CDH Kannauj. Radiologist opinion of CDH Kannauj (1) X-Ray skull Ap/Lat- Show crack fracture at Rt. fronto parietal region. X-Ray Chest- Ap-NAD X-RAY Lt. shoulder with scapula- NAD" 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that there was a delay of 17 days in the X-ray report; the medical report was prepared by one doctor while the statement was recorded by another; and, therefore, the injury report is unreliable. It is further submitted that reliance has been placed on findings recorded at the stage of bail and that no offence under Section 110 of the B.N.S., 2023 is made out. It is also submitted that the next date fixed before the trial court is 27.02.2026 for framing of charge. Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of Dr. Praveen Kumar records treatment of injured persons Sunaina and Mulayam, which is contrary to the present case, as per the F.I.R., the injured is Yusuf. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that there is no mandatory requirement of any specific type of injury for framing a charge under Section 110 of the B.N.S., 2023. The injured Yusuf sustained several injuries, including a fracture. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order, and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is settled law that any observations made at the stage of grant of bail are not to be considered at the stage of trial. Such observations are prima facie in nature and do not CRLR No. 1447 of 2026 2 affect the merits of the case. The case is to be decided on the basis of evidence recorded during trial. 8. The incident is stated to have occurred on 29.07.2024 at 20:00 hours. The F.I.R. was lodged on 30.07.2024 at 18:15 hours under Sections 352, 351(2), 115(2), and 333 of the B.N.S., 2023. 9. After detailed investigation, charge sheet has been filed under section 333, 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 110 B.N.S., 2023. As per medical report submitted by the revisionists themselves with the present criminal revision as Annexure No. 3 injured Yusuf has been duly medically examined on the date of the incident itself on 29.07.2024 at 11.00 P.M. and he has suffered 9 injuries, the injury no. 1, 4, and 5 are kept under observations, advised X-ray. Injury no. 1 is lacerated wound 3x1 cm (+) over Rt. side frontal aspect of skull swelling 4x3 cm (+) fresh bleeding (+) and injuries on the neck join scapular region, left shoulder. In the X-report of the Yusuf/injured X-Ray Skull Ap/lateral- Show a crack fracture at Rt. fronto parietal region. The supplementary report is dated 14.08.2024 but it is based on the examination of Yusuf/injured on 29.07.2024 where X-ray skull Ap/Lat- Show crack fracture at Rt. fronto parietal region. Opinion-according to Radiological opinion injury no. 1 is grievous in nature while rest other simple in nature. The injured/Yusuf has suffered several injuries and injury no. 1 which is caused into the skull and is caused fracture and which is opined as grievous in nature and there are other injures on the vital parts of the body of the injured also. 10. In view of all these facts, reason and circumstances, there is neither any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 11. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. February 25, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 1447 of 2026 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad