Allahabad High Court
Sonam vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93569 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53241 of 2021 Applicant :- Sonam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh,Gagan Pratap Singh,Jaswant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Balbeer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.123 of 2021, under Section 326-A and 302 of I.P.C., Police Station-Hariparvat, District-Agra.
3. Applicant before this Court is a woman who is in jail since 2.6.2021 which is just less than three years, whereas, present status of trial is not on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that genesis of occurrence was suppressed though it is not much denied that applicant was acquainted with deceased, but occurrence as stated in F.I.R. that deceased went to place of applicant wherein she threw acid on him, and he died due to burn injuries was denied and learned counsel submits that occurrence was vice-versa that deceased was attempting to throw acid on the applicant and during struggle it got poured on herself. In the occurrence, applicant also got injured due to acid burn and in this regard discharge summary of applicant shows that she was later on admitted in S.N.Medical College & Hospital at Agra with alleged history of homicidal thermal burn on 25.3.2021 with 20 percent burn and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial and she undertakes that if enlarged on bail she will never misuse her liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
5. Above submissions are opposed by learned A.G.A. who submits that during investigation evidence in support of prosecution was collected and he refers dying declaration of deceased which has completely supported the case of prosecution that applicant, though a woman has threw acid on deceased.
6. 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 etc. and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manoj Kumar Khokar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501, The State of Jharkhand Vs. Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP (Crl) No.10810/2023 and Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and Ors: Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of 2023; Ramayan Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and Anr, 2024 SCC Online SC 563), therefore, I am of considered opinion that present is not a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following reasons:-
(i) Applicant though is a woman, but she has committed an offence of throwing acid on victim who later on died. There is an evidence in nature of dying declaration of deceased assigning specific role to the applicant of causing burn injuries by throwing acid on him.
(ii) Court takes note that applicant got injured in the occurrence, but she has not taken any endeavour to lodge F.I.R. nor called the police, whereas in present case an F.I.R. was lodged on 25.3.2021 and she was arrested on 2.6.2021 as such at this stage, proposed defence has no substance.
(iii) Court also takes note of paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 of a recent judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3446 of 2023, Neutral Citation No2024:AHC:83379, which are mentioned hereinafter:
"14. Legislature has taken note that incidents of acid attack frequently occurred, therefore, in the year 2013, Section 326A of IP.C. was inserted by an Act 13 of 2013 and for reference same is mentioned hereinafter:
"S.326A : Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. [Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with 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:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim;
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.]"
15. As referred above, aforesaid section not only makes a crime where due to acid attack there is some damage to body of victim, but is also includes an act if undertaken with intention of causing or with the knowledge that 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.
16. In this regard, few paragraphs of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in the case of Shivani Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2024 INSC 343, would be relevant wherein while considering challenge to suspension of sentence in a burn acid attack, the Supreme Court has observed (as per Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, J), in its paras 9 to 11 that:
"9. This court had been taking the offence of acid attacks, which are on increase, seriously. It is even to the extent of regulating the sale of the acid with stringent action so that the same is not easily available to the people with perverse mind. Observations made by this court in paragraph 13 of Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 571 being appropriate is extracted below:
"13. We have come across many instances of acid attacks across the country. These attacks have been rampant for the simple reason that there has been no proper implementation of the regulations or control for the supply and distribution of acid. There have been many cases where the victims of acid attack are made to sit at home owing to their difficulty to work. These instances unveil that the State has failed to check the distribution of acid falling into the wrong hands even after giving many directions by this Court in this regard. Henceforth, stringent action be taken against those erring persons supplying acid without proper authorisation and also the authorities concerned be made responsible for failure to keep a check on the distribution of the acid."
10. In Suresh Chandra Jana vs State of West Bengal and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 466, while rejecting the acquittal of an accused as ordered by the High Court in an acid attack case, this Court observed that the acid attack has transformed itself to a gender-based violence, which causes immense psychological trauma resulting in hurdle in overall development of the victim. Paragraph 30 thereof is extracted below:
"30. At the outset, certain aspects on the acid attack need to be observed. Usually vitriolage or acid attack has transformed itself as a gender based violence. Acid attacks not only cause damage to the physical appearance of its victims but also cause immense psychological trauma thereby becoming a hurdle in their overall development. Although we have acknowledged the seriousness of the acid attack when we amended our laws in 2013 [ The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (13 of 2013).] , yet the number of acid attacks are on the rise. Moreover, this Court has been passing various orders to restrict the availability of corrosive substance in the market which is an effort to nip this social evil in the bud. [Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 571 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 143] It must be recognised that having stringent laws and enforcement agencies may not be sufficient unless deep-rooted gender bias is removed from the society."
11. In another case reported as State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs Vijay Kumar alias Pappu and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 373, regarding acid attack on a young girl of 19 years, in which this Court observed in paragraph 13 thereof, that the victim had suffered 16% burn injuries and that such a victim cannot be compensated by grant of any compensation. Paragraph 13 is thereof extracted below:
"13. Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that in the present case the victim had suffered an uncivilised and heartless crime committed by the respondents and there is no room for leniency which can be conceived. A crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency. This Court cannot be oblivious of the situation that the victim must have suffered an emotional distress which cannot be compensated either by sentencing the accused or by grant of any compensation."
7. Bail application is accordingly rejected and learned Trial Court is directed to take all endeavour to proceed with the trial and conclude it within a period of one year and in case it has not substantially progressed within aforesaid period, applicant will be at liberty to approach this Court or learned Trial Court as advised along with status of trial.
8. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024 SB