High Court · 2025

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is same in both the bail applications and it pertains to same case crime number. Since the victim has expired later on, Section 326A IPC has also been added, subsequently, another CMBA No. 6747 of 2025 has been filed with added section 326A of IPC before this Court.

4. Both the aforesaid bail applications pertains to the same case crime number. The CMBA No. 6747 of 2025 is connected with CMBA No. 3574 of 2025, thus both are being decided by a common order.

5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506, 328 of I.P.C. along with added section 326A of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bhagatpur, District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

6. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the relative of the victim, is stated to have established corporeal relationship with her for about eight months before institution of FIR. The applicant is stated to have threatened her to not to reveal the matter to anyone.

7. In the meantime, it was observed by the victim that she was pregnant out of the said corporeal relationship, as such, she informed the applicant about the said fact. The applicant gave her certain medicine to terminate the said pregnancy but the said effort failed.

8. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have send his mother and brother with the bottle of medicine to the victim stating that she shall get hail and hearty after consuming the same. The victim is stated to have consumed the said liquid carried in the bottle, as such, her condition worsened and she went unconscious. She was taken to the hospital and the persons at hospital informed the informant that your daughter has consumed acid.

9. The informant ran from pillar to post for the treatment of his daughter and after her condition improved a little bit, the victim told him about the said incident, as such, the FIR was instituted on 08.10.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

10. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

11. The FIR is delayed by about eight months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The explanation, if any, given by the informant in lodging the FIR belatedly cannot be believed.

12. It is true that the victim was admitted at three hospitals' i.e. Navya Hospital, Medasia Hospital and Alshifa Multi Specialty Hospital. Initially, the victim was admitted at Navya Hospital on 27.01.2023 and was discharged on 03.01.2024. Subsequently, she was again admitted at Medasia Hospital on 05.01.2024 and was discharged on 12.01.2024. After a passage of about 14 days, she was again taken to Alshifa Multi Specialty Hospital, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and she remained admitted there from 26.01.2024 to 30.01.2024.

13. Much reliance has been placed upon the discharge summary of Alshifa Hospital filed with the supplementary affidavit and under the heading of "Chief Complaint", the following observations have been made by the treating doctor:- "Patient brought to Emergency Department of Surgery OPD with alleged history of accidental insertion of acid at home. Now presented with complaints of pain upper abdomen, no food & water intake for 8 days. Unable to swallow."

14. It is argued that the patient was discharged on 30.01.2024 in a stable condition as per the said discharge summary.

15. It is a clear cut case of accidentally consuming the toilet cleaner and the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the case. The applicant is the relative being the son of the aunt (bua) of the victim.

16. It is stated that the applicant was in love with the victim and wanted to marry her as there was no impediment in the said marriage as per customary laws, but her family members did not agree for the same, as such, she consumed toilet cleaner which led to her worsening condition. The victim did not expire due to consuming of the alleged liquid send by the applicant and the said fact stands fortified from her postmortem report which indicates that she expired on 03.03.2025 i.e. after a delay of about two years. Her autopsy was conducted on the same day and the doctor could not ascertain the cause of death, as such, her viscera was preserved and it has been sent for chemical analysis.

17. It is further argued that it cannot be believed that the applicant would have sent his brother & mother with a bottle of acid to be consumed by the victim. There is no allegation that the applicant himself having administered the said acid to the victim.

18. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:

19. Learned State Law Officer as well as learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the condition of the victim was worst as she could not utter a single word after consuming acid which has been sent by the applicant through his brother and mother. As and when her condition improved and the matter was revealed to the informant, the FIR has been instituted, as such, the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained. The said fact also finds mentioned in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS. The doctor, who treated the victim initially at the Navya Hospital, has categorically stated that the victim had consumed acid and the said injuries could not be caused by anything except acid.

20. It is not possible for a person's condition to become so bad after drinking toilet cleaner.

21. The victim has subsequently expired, as such, section 326A of IPC has also been added in the instant case. CONCLUSION:

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS coupled by the fact that victim was unable to speak for a substantial period of time and had expired, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

23. Both the bail applications are, accordingly, rejected.

24. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date:- 16.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is same in both the bail applications and it pertains to same case crime number. Since the victim has expired later on, Section 326A IPC has also been added, subsequently, another CMBA No. 6747 of 2025 has been filed with added section 326A of IPC before this Court.

4. Both the aforesaid bail applications pertains to the same case crime number. The CMBA No. 6747 of 2025 is connected with CMBA No. 3574 of 2025, thus both are being decided by a common order.

5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506, 328 of I.P.C. along with added section 326A of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bhagatpur, District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

6. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the relative of the victim, is stated to have established corporeal relationship with her for about eight months before institution of FIR. The applicant is stated to have threatened her to not to reveal the matter to anyone.

7. In the meantime, it was observed by the victim that she was pregnant out of the said corporeal relationship, as such, she informed the applicant about the said fact. The applicant gave her certain medicine to terminate the said pregnancy but the said effort failed.

8. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have send his mother and brother with the bottle of medicine to the victim stating that she shall get hail and hearty after consuming the same. The victim is stated to have consumed the said liquid carried in the bottle, as such, her condition worsened and she went unconscious. She was taken to the hospital and the persons at hospital informed the informant that your daughter has consumed acid.

9. The informant ran from pillar to post for the treatment of his daughter and after her condition improved a little bit, the victim told him about the said incident, as such, the FIR was instituted on 08.10.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

10. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

11. The FIR is delayed by about eight months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The explanation, if any, given by the informant in lodging the FIR belatedly cannot be believed.

12. It is true that the victim was admitted at three hospitals' i.e. Navya Hospital, Medasia Hospital and Alshifa Multi Specialty Hospital. Initially, the victim was admitted at Navya Hospital on 27.01.2023 and was discharged on 03.01.2024. Subsequently, she was again admitted at Medasia Hospital on 05.01.2024 and was discharged on 12.01.2024. After a passage of about 14 days, she was again taken to Alshifa Multi Specialty Hospital, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and she remained admitted there from 26.01.2024 to 30.01.2024.

13. Much reliance has been placed upon the discharge summary of Alshifa Hospital filed with the supplementary affidavit and under the heading of "Chief Complaint", the following observations have been made by the treating doctor:- "Patient brought to Emergency Department of Surgery OPD with alleged history of accidental insertion of acid at home. Now presented with complaints of pain upper abdomen, no food & water intake for 8 days. Unable to swallow."

14. It is argued that the patient was discharged on 30.01.2024 in a stable condition as per the said discharge summary.

15. It is a clear cut case of accidentally consuming the toilet cleaner and the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the case. The applicant is the relative being the son of the aunt (bua) of the victim.

16. It is stated that the applicant was in love with the victim and wanted to marry her as there was no impediment in the said marriage as per customary laws, but her family members did not agree for the same, as such, she consumed toilet cleaner which led to her worsening condition. The victim did not expire due to consuming of the alleged liquid send by the applicant and the said fact stands fortified from her postmortem report which indicates that she expired on 03.03.2025 i.e. after a delay of about two years. Her autopsy was conducted on the same day and the doctor could not ascertain the cause of death, as such, her viscera was preserved and it has been sent for chemical analysis.

17. It is further argued that it cannot be believed that the applicant would have sent his brother & mother with a bottle of acid to be consumed by the victim. There is no allegation that the applicant himself having administered the said acid to the victim.

18. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:

19. Learned State Law Officer as well as learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the condition of the victim was worst as she could not utter a single word after consuming acid which has been sent by the applicant through his brother and mother. As and when her condition improved and the matter was revealed to the informant, the FIR has been instituted, as such, the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained. The said fact also finds mentioned in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS. The doctor, who treated the victim initially at the Navya Hospital, has categorically stated that the victim had consumed acid and the said injuries could not be caused by anything except acid.

20. It is not possible for a person's condition to become so bad after drinking toilet cleaner.

21. The victim has subsequently expired, as such, section 326A of IPC has also been added in the instant case. CONCLUSION:

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the statements of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS coupled by the fact that victim was unable to speak for a substantial period of time and had expired, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

23. Both the bail applications are, accordingly, rejected.

24. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date:- 16.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad