Disclosure of Criminal History and Lack of Intention to Cause Miscarriage Warrant Bail under BNS

The applicant sought bail in connection with Case Crime No. 279 of 2025, involving alleged physical assault on an injured victim, Sayma Bano.

While medical reports confirmed an "early pregnancy loss," they noted no external injuries on the victim.

The State opposed bail, highlighting that the applicant suppressed his criminal history of five cases in the application, violating the disclosure requirements introduced by the 2025 High Court Amendment Rules.

The applicant subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit disclosing these cases after the prosecution raised the objection.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the lack of medical evidence of external injury and absence of knowledge/intention regarding the victim's pregnancy.

2. Whether the suppression of criminal history and non-compliance with the disclosure procedures under the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, constitutes a sufficient ground to deny bail.

Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the necessity of intention or knowledge when causing injury that results in pregnancy loss.

Rule 18, sub-Rule (7) of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which mandates the disclosure of all pending bail applications and the applicant’s entire criminal history in every bail filing.

The Court balanced the gravity of the "early pregnancy loss" against the medical finding that no external injuries were present on the victim.

It reasoned that since the applicant was unaware of the eight-week pregnancy, the requisite intent to cause such specific harm under the statute was a matter for trial rather than a bar to bail.

Regarding the procedural lapse, although the Court noted the applicant's "suppression of material fact" and attempt to "misuse the liberty of bail," it determined that the merits of the case—specifically the nature of the evidence and duration of incarceration since October 2025—outweighed the procedural misconduct for the purpose of granting liberty.

To prevent future non-disclosure, the Court issued a general directive that all Judicial Officers in Uttar Pradesh must record the criminal history of applicants in a tabular form in their orders and mandated the State/Prosecution to provide these details during hearings.

Failure by Public Prosecutors or Investigating Officers to provide accurate criminal history will now result in administrative referrals for disciplinary action.