The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of four accused charged of acid attack on a bank manager.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Man Singh and others.
Applicants are seeking bail arising out of Case under Sections 307, 352, 326A/34 and 420 of I.P.C Police Station-Charwa, District-Kaushambi.
The case is arising out of an occurrence of an Acid attack. Victim was working as a Bank Manager. One day while she was travelling, two unknown persons came on a motorcycle and threw acid on her. A prompt F.I.R was lodged by her father.
During investigation, the name of applicant and other co-accused came into light that they all act as Brokers in the bank to facilitate sanctioning of loan etc and when the victim while exercising her duties as Bank Manager rejected some of loan applications, she was pressurized. However, when she did not succumb to their pressure it led her to suffer an acid attack.
It has been brought on record that some of the co-accused have been granted bail mainly on ground that their names were disclosed in the confessional statement of the co-accused. However, bail application of one of the co-accused namely Mohd Azam was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of the Court by order dated 20.2.2023.
The Court noted that,
According to the prosecution story, all accused persons hatched a conspiracy to commit the crime of acid attack to deter the victim to succumb to pressure and to pass loans illegally. Victim has submitted various applications that not only she, but her family was pressured to withdraw the case. However, it appears that cognizance has not been taken of it. Documents in this regard are being part of a counter affidavit which is filed by the son of the informant.
Co-ordinate Bench while rejecting bail application of co accused Mohd Azam has also taken note of injury report of victim, CCTV Footage, call detail reports as well as criminal history of twenty cases registered against him.
Arguments have been raised by counsel for applicants that the motive assigned was not supported by any cogent evidence. Theory of conspiracy also does not have support of any cogent evidence. There was no eye witness that applicants were involved in actual crime, other co-accused have already been granted bail and that victim has not suffered any grievous injury.
Counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants are languishing in jail since 17.8.2022 and 18.8.2022 respectively i.e about one year and eight months and there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicants undertake that if enlarged on bail, they will never misuse their liberty and will cooperate in the trial.
A.G.A as well as counsel for informants have vehemently opposed the bail applications and referred documents placed on record by way of above referred counter affidavit, wherein there is discharge summary of the victim that she was given treatment at a hospital with history of chemical burn for surgical management in the Department of Plastic Surgery of Apollo Hospital.
The Court observed that,
As referred above, aforesaid section not only makes a crime where due to acid attack there is some damage to the body of the victim, but it also includes an act if undertaken with intention of causing or with the knowledge that the accused is likely to cause such injury or hurt. Aforesaid section provides that in case of conviction, punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine could be awarded. It further provides that such fine shall be paid within reasonable time to meet the medical expenses for treatment of the victim. It further provides that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal background and in view of established principle of jurisprudence of bail i.e ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’ as well as relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail, therefore, I am of considered opinion that is not a fit case to grant bail to applicant.
“In the aforesaid circumstances considering nature and manner of occurrence, where victim being a lady has suffered acid attack and is still recovering from scars of it as well as taking note of other factors of law in regard to bail which is mentioned above, that she has to pay cost for not being succumbed to pressure to undertake an illegal act to sanction such loan applications which were not qualified for it. The Court also takes note that the Court has transferred the trial to Judgeship at Allahabad. The Court also takes note of evidence collected during investigation about purchase of acid and actual involvement of some applicants and supporting roles assigned to other applicants. There are CDR details as well as all applicants and other co-accused are part of large conspiracy. The Court also takes note that certain relevant facts were not brought into notice of the co-ordinate Bench, which have granted bail to some co-accused”, the Court further observed while rejecting the bail application.
The Court directed the trial court to take all endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and in case statement of victim has not been recorded till date, it may be recorded within a period of six months from. Victim is permitted to avail protection under Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.