Delhi High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 326-A1/3922/3943/3974/120-B5/4116/347 of the Penal Code, 1860, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., stated that in the present case such a prolonged delay in compliance with judicial directions defeated the very purpose of directing expeditious trial of a case. Even though the Court stated that it was not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. However, the Court granted one last opportunity to the prosecution and the Trial Court to conclude trial within one month. The Court further passed directions for effective compliance of higher court’s order to conclude trials in time bound manner.
Background
On 23-12-2014, a PCR call was received, whereby it was informed that an acid attack had taken place in main market of Rajouri Garden, after which, the police official concerned had reached the spot and had found one scooty parked there on which some droplets of chemical were found. Meanwhile, another information was received that the victim had been admitted at a hospital in 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 victim’s statement. Based on that statement, the inspection of the spot and MLC of the victim, the present FIR was registered.
The first bail application of the accused was dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, the accused had moved another bail application which was later withdrawn. Thereafter, the accused filed a third bail application, which was also dismissed by this Court, along with a direction to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of four months. Thereafter, the accused had approached the Supreme Court seeking regular bail during the pendency of the trial. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the said petition and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within one month from the said date.
The primary grievance of the accused was that the trial in the present case had not concluded yet, despite the directions issued by this Court and the Supreme Court for its expeditious completion. The accused had thus, now approached this Court once again, seeking bail by way of the present application.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that after carefully considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of evidence available against the accused, this Court had dismissed the bail application of the accused but had issued directions for the expeditious completion of the trial within a period of four months. Similarly, the Supreme Court also took note of the seriousness of the offence and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of one month.
However, the Court stated that it was unfortunate to note that despite the directions from the Supreme Court and this Court, the trial in the present case was not yet concluded. The Court stated that in view of two categorical directions, for concluding the trial in a time bound manner, the trial should have concluded by March 2024. However, the trial had not yet concluded, which was unacceptable, considering that such directions were passed while disposing of the bail application, and the accused had remained in judicial custody for over 10 years. Such a prolonged delay in compliance with judicial directions defeated the very purpose of directing expeditious trial of a case.
While the Court agreed that there had been a delay in concluding trial, at the same time, the gravity of the offence that the accused had, orchestrated the plan to throw acid on the victim who had declined the proposal of marriage with a doctor, which had led to her face being burnt badly, causing permanent injuries and scars to her face, persuaded the Court to decline regular bail to the accused at this stage. Thus, the Court stated that it was not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage.
However, the Court granted one last opportunity to the prosecution and the Trial Court to conclude trial within one month from date. The Court stated that the District and Sessions Judge concerned would ensure that the case was assigned to the Fast-Track Court for concluding trial within one month. In case, the trial was not concluded within a month, the accused would be at liberty to move a fresh application for bail, which would be heard and decided by this Court on the ground of delay in concluding trial, and on merit. Thus, the accused would be at liberty to approach this Court for bail after expiry of one month, in case the trial was not concluded.
Subsequently, the Court directed that in case any direction for expeditious conclusion of trial was passed by a higher court, and the Judge concerned was on long leave or the Court was vacant for a significant period, the Link Court should immediately bring this to the notice of the District & Sessions Judge concerned that the matter was time-bound. Then, the District & Sessions Judge should take necessary steps to assign the case to another Court to ensure that the directions of either this Court or Supreme Court were complied with in letter and spirit, within the stipulated time.
The Court further directed that 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 must be mentioned by the Court Ahlmad in bold letters and red ink, that the matter was time bound and the period by which the trial was to conclude. This would ensure that such orders did not escape the attention of the Trial Court.
[Vaibhav Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 484 of 2025, decided on 28-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Gaurav Sharma, Sakshi Jha and Aakanksha Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent: Manoj Pant, APP for the State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 124 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)