# Man Singh v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-09
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3446 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/man-singh-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-52060
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164 & 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 352,
326-A/34 & 420 - Applications for Bail -
offence of Acid attack - due to reason that victim
who was working as Bank manager rejected
loan applications of accused persons - prompt
FIR - during investigation name of applicant and
other co-accused was came into light - some of
2254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
co-accused has granted bail on the ground of
their names were disclosed in confessional
St.ment
of
co-accused
-
however,
bail
application of one of co-accused was rejected by
co-ordinate
bench
of
this
Court
while
considering the injury report of victim, CCTV
footage, call details as well as criminal history of
twenty cases registered against him - grounds
of bail is that, applicants are languishing in jail
since long time, - motive & conspiracy was not
supported by any cogent evidence, - no any eye
witness and other co-accused has already been
granted bail - court while considering the nature
and manner of occurrence, takes note that (i)
victim being a lady has suffered acid attack, (ii)
she still recovering from scars of it, (iii) she has
to pay cost for not being succumbed to pressure
to undertake an illegal act to sanction such loan
applicants which were not qualified for it, (iv)
this court has transferred the trial to judgeship
at Allahabad, (v) evidence collected during
investigation about purchase of acid and actual
involvement of some applicants and supporting
role assigned to other applicants, (vi) certain
relevant facts were not brought into notice of coordinate bench, which have granted bail to some
co-accused - hence, bail applications are
accordingly rejected - directions issued for
conclude the trial expeditiously and if St.ment of
victim has not been recorded, it may be
recorded within a period of six months - further
Victim is permitted to avail protection under
witness protection Scheme, 2018. (Para - 8, 9,
18, 19)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Man Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2253
under Section 73 of the Act, it would not be
proper to leave the dispute undecided on
this ground and he rejected the objection
raised in this regard.

26. There appears to be no illegality
in the approach of the Registrar in deciding
the dispute on merits in spite of mention of
a wrong provision when under both the
provisions, the jurisdiction vested with the
registrar and no prejudice has been caused
to any party by the mere mention of a
wrong provision under which the appeal /
application was filed.

27. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment in
the case of Hoosein Abdul Rehman v.
Lakelmichand Khetsey (Supra), in which
the following questions were involved: -

"The second issue in this suit is
whether the document should be ordered to
be
registered.
It
was
rejected
for
insufficient description under section 21 of
the Registration Act. The reasons for this
rejection are given in the Sub-Registrar's
orders of June 7, and August 13, 1923,
Exhibit F, and they are summarised in the
Registrar's order of September 25, 1923,
Exhibit H. He there says:-
* * *

The main question is whether this
view is correct, that is, whether the
property is not sufficiently described in
accordance with sections 21 and 22 of the
Indian Registration Act so that registration
of it was properly refused under section 21.
Before I proceed to discuss that point, I may
mention that Mr. Binning for the defendant
also seeks to support the Sub-Registrars
refusal to register under section 20 of the
Act, on the ground that the blank in the
document regarding the Port Trust number
has not been initialled by the executant....."

28. None of the aforesaid questions
are involved in the present case and,
therefore, Hoosein Abdul Rehman v.
Lakelmichand Khetsey (Supra), is no
relevant for decision of the present case.

29. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, I am of the opinion that the
impugned order does not suffer from any
illegality, warranting interference by this
court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The
writ petition lacks merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.

30. The parties to bear their own costs
of litigation.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3446 of 2023
Along With other connected cases

Man Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Vishnu Murti Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Sunil Choudhary

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164 & 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 352,
326-A/34 & 420 - Applications for Bail -
offence of Acid attack - due to reason that victim
who was working as Bank manager rejected
loan applications of accused persons - prompt
FIR - during investigation name of applicant and
other co-accused was came into light - some of
2254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
co-accused has granted bail on the ground of
their names were disclosed in confessional
St.ment
of
co-accused
-
however,
bail
application of one of co-accused was rejected by
co-ordinate
bench
of
this
Court
while
considering the injury report of victim, CCTV
footage, call details as well as criminal history of
twenty cases registered against him - grounds
of bail is that, applicants are languishing in jail
since long time, - motive & conspiracy was not
supported by any cogent evidence, - no any eye
witness and other co-accused has already been
granted bail - court while considering the nature
and manner of occurrence, takes note that (i)
victim being a lady has suffered acid attack, (ii)
she still recovering from scars of it, (iii) she has
to pay cost for not being succumbed to pressure
to undertake an illegal act to sanction such loan
applicants which were not qualified for it, (iv)
this court has transferred the trial to judgeship
at Allahabad, (v) evidence collected during
investigation about purchase of acid and actual
involvement of some applicants and supporting
role assigned to other applicants, (vi) certain
relevant facts were not brought into notice of coordinate bench, which have granted bail to some
co-accused - hence, bail applications are
accordingly rejected - directions issued for
conclude the trial expeditiously and if St.ment of
victim has not been recorded, it may be
recorded within a period of six months - further
Victim is permitted to avail protection under
witness protection Scheme, 2018. (Para - 8, 9,
18, 19)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shivani Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors, 2024 INSC 343,

2. Parivartan Kendra vs U.O.I. & ors., (2016) 3 SCC
571,

3. Suresh Chandra Jana vs St. of West Bengal &
ors., (2017) 16 SCC 466,

4. St. of Himachal Pradesh & anr. vs Vijay Kumar
alias Pappu & anr., (2019) 5 SCC 373,

5. Deepak Yadav Vs St. of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559,

6. Manoj Kumar Khokar Vs St. of Raj. & anr.(2022)
3 SCC 501,

7. St. of Jharkhand Vs Dhananjay Gupta @
Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order Dt. 7.11.2023 in
SLP (Crl) No.10810/2023,

8. Shiv Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. - Order dt.
12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782/2023,

9. Ramayan Singh Vs The St. of U.P & anr., 2024
SCC Online SC 563),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Murti Tripathi,
learned counsel for applicant-Man Singh,
Sri Kripa Shankar Pandey, learned counsel
for applicant-Santlal, Sri Pawan Shukla,
learned counsel for applicant- Dharmendra,
Sri Sunil Chaudhary, learned counsel for
informant and Sri Roshan Kumar Singh,
learned A.G.A. for State.

2. None appeared on behalf of
applicant-Dilip Kumar.

3. Applicants are seeking bail arising
out of Case Crime No.191 of 2022 under
Sections 307, 352, 326A/34 and 420 of
I.P.C. Police Station-Charwa, DistrictKaushambi.

4. All the bail applications are arising
out of same case crime number, therefore,
decided by this common order.

5. Present case is arising out of an
occurrence of an Acid attack.

6. Victim was working as a Bank
Manager. On day of occurrence while she
was travelling, two unknown persons came
on a motorcycle and threw acid on her. A
prompt F.I.R. was lodged by her father.
5 All. Man Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2255

7. During investigation, name of
applicant and other co-accused came into
light that they all act as Brokers in the bank
to facilitate sanctioning of loan etc and
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.

8. It has been brought on record that
some of co-accused have been granted bail
mainly on ground that their names were
disclosed in confessional statement of coaccused. However, bail application of one
of co-accused namely Mohd. Azam was
rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 20.2.2023, Neutral
Citation No.2023:AHC:41353.

9. According to 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. Victim has submitted various
applications that not only she, but her
family was pressurized to withdraw the
case. However, it appears that cognizance
has not been taken of it. Documents in this
regard are being part of counter affidavit
which is filed by son of informant.

10. Co-ordinate Bench while rejecting
bail application of co-accused Mohd. Azam
has also taken note of injury report of
victim, CCTV Footage, call detail reports
as well as criminal history of twenty cases
registered against him.

11. Arguments have been raised by
counsel for applicants that motive assigned
was not supported by any cogent evidence.
Theory of conspiracy also does not have
support of any cogent evidence. There was
no eye witness that applicants were
involved in actual crime, other co-accused
have already been granted bail and that
victim has not suffered any grievious
injury.

12. Learned counsel for the applicants
further
submits
that
applicants
are
languishing in jail since 17.8.2022 and
18.8.2022 respectively i.e. about one year
and eight months and there is no likelihood
of early disposal of trial and the applicants
undertake that if enlarged on bail, they will
never misuse their liberty and will cooperate in the trial.

13. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned
counsel for informants have vehemently
opposed the bail applications and referred
documents placed on record by way of
above referred counter affidavit, wherein
there is discharge summary of the victim
that she was given treatment at a hospital
with history of chemical burn for surgical
management in the Department of Plastic
Surgery of Apollo Hospital.

14. Legislature has taken note that
incidents
of
acid
attack
frequently
occurred, therefore, in the year 2013,
Section 326A of IP.C. was inserted by an
Act 13 of 2013 and for reference same is
mentioned hereinafter:

 "S.326A : Voluntarily causing
grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.

[Whoever causes permanent or
partial damage or deformity to, or burns or
maims or disfigures or disables, any part or
parts of the body of a person or causes
grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by
administering acid to that person, or by
using any other means with the intention of
causing or with the knowledge that he is
likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be
2256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be
less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and with fine:

Provided that such fine shall be
just and reasonable to meet the medical
expenses of the treatment of the victim;

Provided further that any fine
imposed under this section shall be paid to
the victim.]"

15. As referred above, aforesaid
section not only makes a crime where due
to acid attack there is some damage to body
of victim, but is also includes an act if
undertaken with intention of causing or
with the knowledge that accused is likely to
cause such injury or hurt. Aforesaid section
provides that in case of conviction,
punishment of imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be
less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and with fine could
be awarded. It further provides that such
fine shall be paid within reasonable time to
meet the medical expenses for treatment of
the victim. It further provides that any fine
imposed under this section shall be paid to
the victim.

16. In this regard, few paragraphs of a
recent judgement passed by Supreme Court
in the case of Shivani Tyagi Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors, 2024 INSC 343, would be
relevant
wherein
while
considering
challenge to suspension of sentence in a
burn acid attack, the Supreme Court has
observed (as per Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, J),
in its paras 9 to 11 that:

"9. This court had been taking
the offence of acid attacks, which are on
increase, seriously. It is even to the extent
of regulating the sale of the acid with
stringent action so that the same is not
easily available to the people with perverse
mind. Observations made by this court in
paragraph 13 of Parivartan Kendra vs
Union of India and Others, (2016) 3 SCC
571 being appropriate is extracted below:
 "13. We have come across many
instances of acid attacks across the
country. These attacks have been rampant
for the simple reason that there has been no
proper implementation of the regulations
or control for the supply and distribution of
acid. There have been many cases where
the victims of acid attack are made to sit at
home owing to their difficulty to work.
These instances unveil that the State has
failed to check the distribution of acid
falling into the wrong hands even after
giving many directions by this Court in this
regard. Henceforth, stringent action be
taken
against
those
erring
persons
supplying
acid
without
proper
authorisation and also the authorities
concerned be made responsible for failure
to keep a check on the distribution of the
acid."

10. In Suresh Chandra Jana vs
State of West Bengal and Others, (2017)
16 SCC 466, while rejecting the acquittal
of an accused as ordered by the High Court
in an acid attack case, this Court observed
that the acid attack has transformed itself
to a gender-based violence, which causes
immense psychological trauma resulting in
hurdle in overall development of the victim.
Paragraph 30 thereof is extracted below:

"30. At the outset, certain aspects
on the acid attack need to be observed.
Usually vitriolage or acid attack has
transformed itself as a gender based
violence. Acid attacks not only cause
damage to the physical appearance of its
victims
but
also
cause
immense
psychological trauma thereby becoming a
hurdle in their overall development.
Although we have acknowledged the
5 All. Man Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2257
seriousness of the acid attack when we
amended our laws in 2013 [ The Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (13 of 2013).]
, yet the number of acid attacks are on the
rise. Moreover, this Court has been passing
various orders to restrict the availability of
corrosive substance in the market which is
an effort to nip this social evil in the bud.
[Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India,
(2016) 3 SCC 571 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri)
143] It must be recognised that having
stringent laws and enforcement agencies
may not be sufficient unless deep-rooted
gender bias is removed from the society."

11. In another case reported as
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another
vs Vijay Kumar alias Pappu and Another,
(2019) 5 SCC 373, regarding acid attack
on a young girl of 19 years, in which this
Court observed in paragraph 13 thereof,
that the victim had suffered 16% burn
injuries and that such a victim cannot be
compensated
by
grant
of
any
compensation. Paragraph 13 is thereof
extracted below:

"13. Indeed, it cannot be ruled
out that in the present case the victim had
suffered an uncivilised and heartless crime
committed by the respondents and there is
no room for leniency which can be
conceived. A crime of this nature does not
deserve any kind of clemency. This Court
cannot be oblivious of the situation that the
victim must have suffered an emotional
distress which cannot be compensated
either by sentencing the accused or by
grant of any compensation."

17. 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 (see
Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 8
SCC 559, Manoj Kumar Khokar Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC
501, The State of Jharkhand Vs.
Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad
Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP
(Crl) No.10810/2023 and Shiv Kumar Vs
The State of U.P. and Ors: Order dated
12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of
2023; Ramayan Singh Vs. The State of
U.P. and Anr, 2024 SCC Online SC 563),
therefore, I am of considered opinion that
present is not a fit case to grant bail to
applicant.

18. 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 Court also takes note of
evidence collected during investigation
about purchase of acid and actual
involvement of some applicants and
2258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
supporting
role
assigned
to
other
applicants. There are CDR details as well as
all applicants and other co-accused are part
of large conspiracy. The Court also takes
note that certain relevant facts were not
brought into notice of co-ordinate Bench,
which have granted bail to some coaccused.

19. Bail applications are accordingly
rejected. However, learned Trial Court is
directed 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.

20. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2258
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHSRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2325 of 2010
And other connected cases

Shankar @ Daddi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Anshul Tiwari,
Sanyukta Singh A.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, A.K. Tripathi

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Sections 34, 147, 148, 149,
302, 307, 379 & 411 - Criminal Law
Amendment Act, - Section - 7 - Appeals -
against conviction & sentence - offence of
murder by forming unlawful assembly - Accused
persons
had
allegedly
assaulted
upon
complainant side resulting one died & anr.
injuries - proof - in one set of Appeals (filed by
Shankar Yadav alias Daddi, Santosh Singh,
Kalloo alias Kalyan & Raghubir Yadav) -
evaluation of evidence - court finds that,
appellant witnesses including the injured St.d
that accused persons who were carrying rifle,
country made gun and axe, encircled deceased,
opened fire with rifle and gave axe blows to
deceased and when injured tried to save her
husband and lie down on his body, accused
again opened fire that hit her on her thigh -
Presence of witnesses on spot was proved -
Testimony of witnesses was corroborated by
medical evidence - Delay in recording St.ment of
injured was of no consequence since she had
suffered firearm injury and only when she
returned home, her St.ment was recorded -
moreover, her testimony regarding description
of offence and manner in which offence was
committed, could not be shattered by defence -
Accused persons had prior enmity with deceased
- Weapons of offence were recovered from
accused persons - Motorcycle of deceased which
was taken away by accused was also recovered
- hence, being find no merit in one set of
appeals - conviction was proper. (Para - 51, 51a,b,c,d,e,g,h, i,j)

(B) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 313 - Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Sections 34, 147, 148, 149,
302, 307, 379 & 411 - Criminal Law
Amendment Act(E-11) Section - 7 -
Appeals - against conviction & sentence -
offence of murder by forming unlawful assembly
- co-accused persons had allegedly assaulted
upon complainant side resulting one died & anr.
injuries - common intention - proof - another
Appeal (filed by Ballu alias Balak Das, Toran
Yadav & Bhan Singh) - evaluation of evidence -
court finds that, neither motive nor enmity was
attributed to co-accused persons by witnesses -
no recovery was effected from them - further,
record did not shows that co-accused persons
had meeting of minds or sharing of common
intention with accused persons for committing