Malhotra, Ms. Meghna Bali, Mr. Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Ms. Neha Sehrawat, Advocates v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:21:32 Rohilla from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital whereby it was informed that a victim with acid burns has been admitted to the hospital, therefore, an MLC has to be conducted, whereafter, the concerned police official had reached the hospital and collected MLC No. 12775 of 2022 pertaining to the patient Smt. Shama Praveen, wife of Juail Siddique aged 26 years. However, the victim was not found at the hospital. The victim’s phone number was not reachable and it was learnt that she was referred to Higher Centre for further treatment and thus, the MLC was kept pending. Subsequently, upon establishing contact with the victim on her mobile, it was found that she is under treatment at Jeevan Mala Hospital, New Rohtak Road Karol Bagh, Delhi. 3.1. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) had reached the said hospital and on 09.08.2022, recorded statement of victim/complainant who had stated that she got married Applicant/accused i.e. Juail Siddique a year ago. The victim stated that on the day of incident i.e. 08.08.2022 when she had reached near Banjara Masjid, Rakhi Market, in front of Zakhira Gate, she saw the accused was coming towards her holding a plastic mug in his hand which contained water-like substance and he/Juail said that he will spoil her face by pouring this substance, which is an acid; and then he threw the acid on her face. Immediately, thereafter when she started screaming loudly, the Applicant had fled from the spot. It is stated that thereafter her mother Sabila Khatoon took her to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital. However, as her condition was critical, she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital but due to unavailability of bed in I.C.U and as her condition was deteriorating, therefore, her mother took her to the private hospital i.e. Jeewan Mala BAIL APPLN. 3020/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:21:32 Hospital for getting her a treatment. Subsequently the complaint was registered and investigation was initiated. 3.2. It is stated that during investigation it was found that five (5) other child victims present at the spot also got injured due to the acid thrown by the Applicant i.e. Juail on the complainant. All of them were given medical treatment and their statements in this regard were obtained. 3.3. It is stated that on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation the Applicant/accused was arrested on 10.08.2022 and produced before the Court wherein one day Police Custody (‘PC’) remand was obtained from the concerned Court for tracing and arresting the acid supplier as well, however, no information could be attained in this regard. 3.4. It is stated that thereafter during the course of investigation the statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was recorded by the learned MM which corroborated with the statement recorded by the police official under section 161 of CrPC. 3.5. Furthermore, it is stated that the MLC of complainant/victim was deposited in hospital for getting final opinion of the doctors and it is mentioned on the MLC that the nature of injury sustained by the victim as ‘Grievous’. 3.6. It is stated that mug recovered at the instance of accused and burnt clothes of the victim/complainant were sent to FSL and as per FSL report both were found to be containing ‘Sulpheric Acid’. 3.7. As per the medical record, the victim/complainant remained hospitalized in the Burns and Plastic Surgery Block, Department of Plastic BAIL APPLN. 3020/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:21:33 Burns and Reconstructive Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on 10.08.2022. She was diagnosed to have sustained 20% TBSA acid burn involving left side of face, chest, bilateral upper limb, abdominal and left thigh. The victim/complainant underwent debridement under general anesthesia on 23.08.2022, 08.09.2022 and 30.09.202 and she was discharged from AIIMS on 08.10.2022. 3.8. It is stated that besides the complainant, there were five (5) children at the site and the sulpheric acid also fell on the five (5) children. The said children also sustained acid burns and their MLCs were conducted. 3.9. The investigation of the case was completed and charge-sheet against the Applicant was filed. Charges have been framed. The statement of seventeen (17) witnesses have been examined and the eighteenth (18th) witness has been partly examined. The matter is next listed on 24.02.2025. And three (3) more witnesses are left to be examined, therefore, the Trial is nearing conclusion. 3.10. It is stated that in addition to the complainant who has been examined as PW-1, two of the five injured children have also stepped into witness box and have been examined as PW-11 and PW-12. It is stated that the said child witnesses have also identified the accused as the person who threw the acid on the date of the offence. It is stated that the third child witness who was examined as PW-9 has confirmed the incident of acid being thrown on the complainant and the children, however, PW-9 has not identified the Applicant. 3.11. It is stated that of the remaining two children, one child was three and a half years old and, therefore, she has been dropped as a witness. She was enlisted at serial no. 7. Her MLC is on record. BAIL APPLN. 3020/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:21:33

3.12. It is stated that another child, who is 8 years old and was enlisted at serial no. 6 is not traceable. So, also her MLC is on record. 3.13. It is stated that since the eye-witnesses who were injured in the incident have deposed and identified the Applicant, in such a heinous offence, the Applicant is not entitled to bail. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the victim/complainant, who is the wife of the Applicant since her married life with the applicant was not doing well. 4.1. He states that since the investigation qua the applicant already stands concluded, the charges as well stands framed and trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time; therefore, no useful purpose would be served for keeping the applicant in judicial custody. 4.2. He further states that the Applicant should be released on bail as there are various lapses and infirmities in the investigation since the IO did not collect CCTV footage or record statements of any public witnesses etc. 4.3. He further states that there are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant/victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Section 164 Cr.P.C. He states that as per the version of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C it did not mention about any other child victim and as per the version recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C eight children are alleged to have been burned during the alleged incident, however, there is no MLC on record of 08.08.2022 in respect of the said victims/children, nor the statement of their parents has been recorded by the IO. BAIL APPLN. 3020/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:21:33

4.4. He further states that that there was a delay of 24 hrs in recording the statement of the victim without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. 4.5. He states that as per GD Entry 100A, recorded on 08.08.2022 the acid burns were sustained by the victim at her house and not at the public place, as alleged in the subject FIR. 4.6. He states that the incident is alleged to be of 08.08.2022 and the Applicant’s arrest is admittedly shown as on 10.08.2022 and recovery of the alleged mug used in the offence is also shown to have been recovered on 10.08.2022; however, the store-room register of the malkhana records that the alleged mug and the clothes of the Applicant/accused were deposited on 09.08.2022. He states that PW-6, the official witness has already deposed and exhibited the store-room register as Ex. Pw-6/A and has confirmed that the alleged mug and the clothes of the applicant were deposited in the malkhana on 09.08.2022. He states that since Applicant was arrested on 10.08.2022, it is evident the alleged mug is a planted recovery. 4.7. He states that since the complainant/victim’s statement was recorded on 09.08.2022, it is unexplained that on what basis the IO carried out inspection of the alleged crime scene on 08.08.2022. He states that there is no explanation as to how the IO learnt about the spot/scene of crime on

08.08.2022. 4.8. He states that though the incident is alleged to have happened at a market place during Namaaz time, the IO has not placed on record any CCTV footage of the alleged incident though admittedly there are CCTVs BAIL APPLN. 3020/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:21:33 in this area. He states that moreover there is no public witness of the alleged incident though it happened in broad day-light. 4.9. He states that a perusal of the statements of the child witnesses i.e, PW-11 and PW-12 shows that the said children are known to the complainant and in their cross-examination they have admitted that the complainant tutored them. 4.10. He states that there is no criminal antecedent against the Applicant and as such there are no chances of the Applicant absconding or fleeing if he is admitted to bail. 4.11. He further states that the applicant undertakes to join investigation as and when directed by this Court or as required by the police officials /IO. 5. Mr. Laksh Khanna, learned APP for the State opposes the regular bail application. He states that the Applicant herein has been accused in commission of an offence, which is very grave and heinous in nature. 5.1. He states that the case of the prosecution is well-established and corroborated by the eye-witness testimony and medical evidence in the form of MLCs of the complainant as well as the minor injured victims. 5.2. He states that all the five children, who were injured by the sulphuric acid were medically examined on 10.08.2022 and there MLCs have been placed on record. He states that PW-11, who is 10 years old and PW-12, who is 12 years old have categorically identified the Applicant as the assailant who threw the acid on the date of the offence. He states that there is no cross examination of the said witnesses on the point that they did not suffer injuries. He states that the credibility of these witnesses is not affected due to the fact they are known to the victim as the cross- examination shows that their statements are consistent, reliable and BAIL APPLN. 3020/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:21:33 coherent. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra1. 5.3. He states that contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant with respect to the inconsistency in the timelines of the investigation will be explained by the IO, when he steps into the witness box. He states, however, in this case direct testimonies of the eyewitnesses, who were injured during the commission of the offence has come on record and it bears out the case of the prosecution. He states that the testimonies are corroborated with the medical evidence of the injuries suffered by the said witnesses. He states that in light of the testimonies of PW-1, PW-11 and PW-12, the defect if any in the investigation of the IO would have to be disregarded. In this regard, he relies, upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Dhanaj Singh @Shera & Ors. vs. State of Punjab2. He also relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.3 to contend that the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses i.e., PW-1, PW-11 and PW-12 herein is to be accorded high status of reliability. 5.4. He states that there is a reasonable likelihood that the applicant may abscond or flee and evade the process of law. 5.5. He states that previously three regular bail applications of the Applicant filed before the Trial Court have already been dismissed and besides that there has been no change in circumstances which could evidence that Applicant is not involved in commission of such grave offence.