Allahabad High Court

KUSHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The court rejected the second bail application.

Summary

The accused, Kush, applied for a second bail in a criminal case (Crime No.239 of 2025) alleging he did not cause the grievous injuries alleged in the FIR. The FIR and medical reports detail severe injuries to the victim, Neha, including bone‑deep lacerations, fractures, and intracranial hemorrhages, establishing a case of grievous hurt. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the injuries, the existence of eight charge‑sheet witnesses, and a prior offence (Crime No.40 of 2025) against the same victim, suggesting a risk of intimidation if released. The applicant argued lack of criminal history, the long pendency of trial, and no flight risk. The court, after weighing the gravity of the allegations, the medical evidence, and the repeat nature of the alleged offence, found no substantial new ground to grant bail and consequently rejected the second bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

Whether the accused should be granted a second bail given the alleged grievous injuries to the victim.
Whether the risk of intimidation or repeat offence justifies denial of bail.
Whether the accused poses a flight risk or risk of tampering with evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 351(1), 351(2)

Subjects

bail
grievous hurt
repeat offence
pre‑trial detention
medical evidence
intimidation risk

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32905 of 2026

Kush
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashi Bhushan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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
BAIL No. 32905 of 2026
2

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
3

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.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…