The Delhi High Court passed directions for the conclusion of trials in a time-bound manner while refusing to grant bail to an accused in a case of acid attack where he had remained in judicial custody for over 10 years, and there had been a long delay in concluding the trial.

The bail application before the High Court was preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the applicant who was booked under Sections 326A,392,394,397,120B,411,34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ordered, “...the order of the higher Court containing issuance of directions for conclusion of trial in a time bound manner must be placed on the first page/cover of the judicial file, and it be mentioned by the Ahlmad in bold letters and red ink, that the matter is time bound and the period by which the trial is to conclude.”

Advocate Gaurav Sharma represented the Petitioner, while APP Manoj Pant represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2014 when a PCR call was received, informing that an acid attack had taken place in the main market of Rajouri Garden. The concerned police official reached the spot and found one scooty parked there on which some droplets of chemical were found. The victim ‘Dr. A’ had been admitted to the Hospital, as she had sustained serious injuries on her face and eye due to acid being thrown at her. The victim/complainant stated that on the day of incident when she was going to the Hospital where she was working as a Senior Resident, two persons on a motorcycle snatched her bag and one of the persons riding the motorcycle threw a chemical on her face which affected her right eye, face and right hand. Immediately thereafter, she started feeling a burning sensation, and when she started to scream, both the attackers fled from the spot along with her bag.

Based on the statement of the victim, inspection of the spot and her MLC, the present FIR was registered under Sections 394/326A/34 of IPC. After the bail applications of the Petitioner were dismissed, the petitioner also approached the Apex Court with a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within one month. The applicant had approached the High Court once again, seeking bail by way of the present application.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the allegations that the petitioner had played an active role in the conspiracy hatched by the co-accused, Dr. Ashok, to carry out a premeditated acid attack on the victim, a 30-year-old senior resident doctor working at a Government hospital in Delhi. The attack was allegedly orchestrated as an act of revenge after the victim had rejected the Doctor’s marriage proposal and repelled his advances.The present accused, who used to work as an assistant and compounder to Dr. Ashok, was alleged to have been privy to the plan and also actively facilitated its execution.

As per the prosecution, he was instrumental in hiring juveniles to commit the offence, coordinating the reconnaissance of the victim’ s movements, procuring the acid, and even participating in rehearsals of the act using syringes filled with water.

Coming to the argument relating to the ground of delay in concluding the trial, the Bench noted that despite the directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court, the trial in the present case had not yet concluded. “This Court observes that in view of the two categorical directions, first by this Court on 04.09.2023 and second by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 01.02.2024, for concluding the trial in a time-bound manner, the trial should have been concluded by March 2024. However, the trial has not yet concluded, which is unacceptable, considering that such directions were passed while disposing of the bail application, and the accused has remained in judicial custody for over 10 years. Such a prolonged delay in compliance with judicial directions defeats the very purpose of directing expeditious trial of a case”, it said.

The Court noted that there had been a delay in concluding trial and non-compliance of the orders to conclude trial within the stipulated time. However, the Bench also noticed the gravity of the offence and how allegedly the accused had, in a premeditated conspiracy, orchestrated the plan to throw acid on a doctor, who had declined the proposal of another doctor and refused to get married to him, which had led to her face being burnt badly, causing permanent injuries and scars to her face. These facts led to the Court declining regular bail to the applicant. The Bench granted one last opportunity to the prosecution and the Trial Court to conclude the trial within one month.

Directions

Further, considering the aspect of delay, the Bench passed the following directions:

  • In case any direction for expeditious conclusion of trial has been passed by a higher court, and the concerned learned Judge is on long leave or the Court is vacant for a significant period, the Link Court shall immediately bring to the notice of the concerned learned District & Sessions Judge that the matter is time-bound. The District & Sessions Judge shall then take the necessary steps to assign the case to another Court to ensure that the directions of either this Court or Supreme Court are complied with in letter and spirit, within the stipulated time. Needless to say, there will be no reason to reassign the case in case the court is on leave for a brief period.
  • Secondly, the order of the higher Court containing issuance of directions for conclusion of trial in a time bound manner must be placed on the first page/cover of the judicial file, and it be mentioned by the Ahlmad in bold letters and red ink, that the matter is time bound and the period by which the trial is to conclude. This will ensure that such orders do not escape the attention of the Trial Court, so that no ground could be taken in future that such an order was not brought to the knowledge of the concerned Trial Court.

Conclusion

Thus, the Bench refused to grant bail to the Petitioner and disposed of the bail application with the above-mentioned directions.

Cause Title: Vaibhav Kumar v. State Through Sho Rajouri Garden (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1332)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Gaurav Sharma, Sakshi Jha, Aakanksha Sharma

Respondent: APP Manoj Pant

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.