The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a bone-deep lacerated head wound, even without a skull fracture, is sufficient to invoke Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), rejecting the argument that radiological evidence is mandatory. The Court also reinforced the procedural safeguards for non-arrested accused by directing them to seek bail within a stipulated timeframe, aligning with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Ram Murat and three others, seek quashing of the charge-sheet dated 25.05.2025 in FIR No. 0192 of 2025, registered at Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 110, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNSS. The case arises from an alleged altercation on 22.03.2025 involving physical assault on Durgawati, who sustained a head injury. The applicants were never arrested during investigation and were served notice under Section 35 BNSS, to which they responded.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred on 22.03.2025 at Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar
- Durgawati sustained a lacerated wound on the left side of her head, described in the injury report as "bone-deep"
- No X-ray or radiological report confirming skull fracture was submitted by the prosecution
- FIR No. 0192 of 2025 was registered on 23.03.2025
- Charge-sheet was filed on 25.05.2025
- A cross-FIR, Case Crime No. 193 of 2025, was registered on 23.03.2025 under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNSS against Ram Murat and others by the complainant
- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, took cognizance and framed charges on 03.01.2026
- Criminal Case No. 169 of 2026, State vs. Rameshar and Others, is currently pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Procedural History
- 22.03.2025: Alleged incident occurs
- 23.03.2025: FIR No. 0192 of 2025 registered against applicants; cross-FIR No. 193 of 2025 registered against Ram Murat
- 25.05.2025: Charge-sheet filed under Sections 110, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNSS
- 03.01.2026: Chief Judicial Magistrate frames charges and takes cognizance
- 19.06.2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
The Parties' Positions
The applicants contend that Section 110 BNSS cannot be invoked without proof of skull fracture, citing absence of X-ray evidence. They argue the charge is frivolous and motivated, especially given the existence of a cross-case. The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, argues that Section 110 BNSS requires only a serious head injury, and a bone-deep lacerated wound qualifies as such under the statutory definition.
Relief Sought
The applicants seek:
- Quashing of the charge-sheet dated 25.05.2025
- Quashing of the order dated 03.01.2026 framing charges
- Dismissal of Criminal Case No. 169 of 2026
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) requires proof of a fractured skull bone to attract the offence, or whether a bone-deep lacerated head wound alone suffices.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that Section 110 BNSS, which criminalizes causing grievous hurt by endangering life or causing permanent privation of sight, hearing, or member of the body, requires a fracture of the skull bone as a sine qua non. He relied on the absence of an X-ray report and contended that the injury described - a lacerated wound - is not equivalent to a fracture under medical or legal interpretation. He further submitted that the charge was motivated, given the pendency of a cross-case, and that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Advocate countered that Section 110 BNSS does not mandate a skull fracture. He cited the injury report, which explicitly describes the wound as "bone-deep", indicating penetration to the bone, which constitutes grievous hurt under Section 110 BNSS read with Section 114 BNSS (definition of grievous hurt). He emphasized that the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil has cautioned against premature quashing where cognizable offences are disclosed on the face of the record.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the injury report and the statutory definition of grievous hurt under Section 114 BNSS, which includes "any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits" and specifically lists "fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth" as grievous hurt. The Court noted that while fracture is explicitly mentioned, the term "bone-deep lacerated wound" implies penetration to the bone, which may constitute injury to the bone even without complete fracture.
"It is not necessary that there should be a fracture of the skull bone for attracting the provisions of Section 110 BNSS. A bone-deep lacerated wound on the head, as recorded in the injury report, is sufficient to constitute grievous hurt under Section 114 BNSS."
The Court further held that the existence of a cross-case does not, by itself, render the charge-sheet illegal or mala fide. The prosecution is entitled to proceed on the basis of its own evidence. The Court declined to interfere under Section 528 BNSS, as the allegations, if proven, constitute cognizable offences.
However, recognizing that the applicants were never arrested, had cooperated with investigation, and responded to notices, the Court invoked the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773. The Court emphasized that in cases where the accused are not arrested and the offences are punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment, the trial court must be given the opportunity to consider bail applications expeditiously.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the charge-sheet and proceedings are not liable to be quashed. However, the applicants are directed to appear before the trial court within three weeks from today and file an application for bail. The trial court shall hear and decide such application expeditiously in accordance with law and the principles in Satender Kumar Antil. The applicants are also at liberty to file an application for discharge, which shall be considered on merits. No coercive process shall be adopted against the applicants for three weeks from today or until their appearance before the trial court, whichever is earlier.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bone-Deep Wounds Qualify as Grievous Hurt Under BNSS
- Practitioners must now argue that a "bone-deep" laceration, even without radiological confirmation of fracture, satisfies the threshold for grievous hurt under Section 114 BNSS
- Prosecution need not produce X-ray reports as mandatory evidence for Section 110 BNSS charges
- Defence counsel should focus on the nature and depth of injury as recorded in medical reports, not solely on absence of imaging
Non-Arrested Accused Entitled to Bail Opportunity
- Courts must apply Satender Kumar Antil proactively in cases where accused are not arrested and offences are non-capital
- Applications for bail must be heard expeditiously - delay is not permissible
- Coercive measures (arrest, detention) are barred during the initial three-week window if notice has been complied with
- Defence should file bail applications immediately upon receipt of charge-sheet to trigger the statutory obligation for expeditious hearing
Quashing of Charge-Sheets Requires More Than Cross-Cases
- Pendency of a cross-case does not automatically vitiate the prosecution’s case
- Quashing under Section 528 BNSS requires clear abuse of process or complete absence of prima facie case
- Courts will not interfere merely because the accused claim victimhood in a parallel case
