The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to four men who were accused of throwing acid on a female Bank Manager.

The accused persons had filed bail applications arising out of the same case of an Acid Attack.

A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed, “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 this Court has transferred the trial to Judgeship at Allahabad.”

The Bench took note of the evidence collected during investigation about purchase of acid and actual involvement of some applicants and supporting role assigned to other applicants.

Advocate Vishnu Murti Tripathi represented the applicants/accused while AGA Roshan Kumar Singh represented the opposite party/State.

Brief Facts -

The applicants/accused persons sought bail for the case registered under Sections 307, 352, 326A, 34, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim was working as a Bank Manager and on the day of occurrence of the incident, two unknown persons came on a motorcycle and threw acid on her while she was travelling. A prompt FIR was lodged by the father of the victim. During investigation, name of applicant and other co-accused came into light that they all acted as Brokers in the bank to facilitate sanctioning of loan etc.

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. According to the prosecution story, all accused persons hatched a conspiracy to commit crime of acid attack to deter the victim to succumb to pressure and to pass loan illegally. The victim submitted various applications that not only she, but her family was pressurized to withdraw the case.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “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”

The Court said that there are CDR details as well as all applicants and other co-accused are part of large conspiracy. It further noted that certain relevant facts were not brought into notice of co-ordinate Bench, which has granted bail to some co-accused.

The Court also 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 today.

“Victim is permitted to avail protection under Witness Protection Scheme, 2018”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court denied bail to the applicants.

Cause Title- Man Singh v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:83379)


Applicants: Advocates Vishnu Murti Tripathi, Kripa Shanker Pandey, Mohammad Rizwan, Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Pawan Shukla, Rizwan Sayed, Sushil Kumar Pandey, and Ziya Uddin.

Opposite Party: AGA Roshan Kumar Singh, Advocates Sunil Choudhary, and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava.

Click here to read/download the Judgment