The severity of the offence and its impact on the victim outweighed the accused's long incarceration, emphasizing the need for a speedy trial and the societal impact of bail orders in heinous crime cases.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

Factual Background

Arguments Addressed By The Counsels

Analysis And Findings

i. Principles Governing Grant Of Bail

ii. The Object Behind Enactment Of Section 326A Of IPC

iii. The Prosecution Case: In A Nutshell

iv. Analysis Of Evidence Against The Accused

v. Heinousness Of Offence Vs. Long Period Of Incarceration Of Accused

vi. Societal Impact Of Such Bail Orders

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR bearing no. 1525/2014, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 326A/392/397/411/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 23.12.2014, a PCR call was received vide DD No. 30B whereby it was informed that an acid attack had taken place in main market of Rajouri Garden, after which, the concerned police official had reached the spot and had found one scooty parked there on which some droplets of chemical were found. In the meanwhile, another information was received vide DD No. 33B that the victim Dr. 'A' had been admitted at ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur, Delhi, as she had sustained serious injuries on her face and eye due to acid being thrown at her. Thereafter, the victim was referred to AIIMS Hospital, Delhi for further treatment. Accordingly, the investigating officer had reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim/complainant Dr. 'A' who had stated that on the day of incident i.e. 23.12.2014 when she was going to Hospital 'H' where she was working as a Senior Resident Doctor, at about 09:20 AM, when she had reached Main Market, Rajouri Garden, two persons on a motorcycle had snatched her brown colour bag and one of the persons riding the motorcycle had thrown a chemical on her face which had affected her right eye, face and right hand. It was stated that immediately thereafter, she had started feeling burning sensation and when she had started to scream loudly, both the attackers had fled from the spot alongwith her bag. Thereafter, the police had visited the spot again, and had found chemical drops lying on the handle and head lights of the scooty and also on the seat of the scooty and on the ground, which were picked up with the help of crime team. On the basis of the statement of victim, inspection of the spot and MLC of the victim, the present FIR was registered under Sections 394/326A/34 of IPC.

ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE COUNSELS

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that no motive can be attributed to the present accused/applicant, and that he is not the alleged main conspirator. It is stated that the applicant was only working as compounder of the main accused who was allegedly the main conspirator and was a one sided lover of the victim and had planned a revenge on her. It is stated that the minimum punishment in this case is only ten years and the accused has already been in judicial custody for last nine years. It is argued that the present applicant was acting under instructions of the main accused, and had no personal motive to commit the act. It is further stated that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has to be considered while dealing with cases of long incarceration and nothing can be more important than right to life and personal liberty.

4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is stated that the applicant was one of the main conspirators of the incident, and was actively involved in the planning and plotting of the entire act. It is further stated that the victim has suffered injuries in her right eye with 41% disability and therefore, no ground for bail is made out at this stage.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both the learned counsel for applicant/accus