Voluntary compensation and long custody are significant factors in determining bail for serious offenses like acid attacks, despite the presumption against leniency.

JUDGMENT

Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application

Heard Sri. Vinay Saran, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This is the bail application seeking suspension of sentence of accused-appellants.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the accused appellants pending appeal who have been convicted in ST No.329 of 2019 (State v. Ajab Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 771 of 2018, under Sections 307 /149, 326A/149, 504/149, 395 IPC, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut.

4. Leaned counsel for the appellants submits that as per informant his daughter, victim (S), name not disclosed, was coming back to home on 22.11.2018, when she gets off the tempo, three persons came on a motorcycle and by throwing acid on her face, ran away. She got admitted in a hospital. Thereafter, during investigation, police recorded the statement of the victim, who appeared as PW2 and had stated that few days before the incident, she was teaching in the school of Ajab Singh for one and a half years. Later on, she noticed indecent behaviour of Ajab Singh and due to that she left the job and acquired a job in a showroom in one shopping mall. On the date of incident, when she came back from his job, Ajab Singh gave her a call on phone to rejoin the duty in his school, when she got down from an auto, she noticed that Ajab Singh, Ankit and Rinku were standing near a motorcycle along with other bike Ravi and Rohit were standing. Ankit caught hold of her mouth and Rinku pushed her on the side of the road, in the meantime, Ajab Singh started abusing her and Ravi and Rohit also came there. Ajab Singh gave a cane to Ankit and said he should put an acid on her face and he poured the acid on her face. When she shouted Jagveer and Dheeraj came on the spot but accused were succeed to ran away.

5. Counsel submits that Appellants Ankit and Ajab Singh aged about 56 years in actual custody of about 5 years. Learned counsel appearing for Ravi, Rohit and Rinku also submits that the custody of the accused is 5 years whereas, the counsel appearing for Shrawan submits that his custody is about three years.

6. Learned counsel submits that Ajab Singh was involved in one case under Section 498A IPC whereas Ankit is involved in a case under Section 392 IPC and except that there is no case pending against them. The common arguments raised by counsel for the appellants that in the FIR it is stated that three boys came on a motorcycle and by throwing acid on the victim ran away whereas later on six persons were nominated in the statement of the victim. It is also submitted that it has come in the statement of PW3 and PW4 that they are not the eye witness and came on the spot, after the incident.

7. Learned counsel further submits that it has come in the evidence that about Rs. 21 lacs were spent by the victim on her treatment and she has suffered disfigurement on her face. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned judgment, the Trial court has further directed that under the Victim Compensation Scheme, she may be granted adequate compensation for her treatment as well as future treatment by the District Legal Services Authority, Meerut.

8. All the counsels have collectively argued that without prejudice to their right of defence and without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to be decided at the time of final disposal of appeal, the appellants collectively and voluntarily will pay an amount of Rs. 25 lacs by way of six demand drafts, which may be given to the victim for her medical treatmen