Yash Pal vs Sanjeev Kumar and Another

J.P. Singh, J.—Accused of throwing acid on Roman Lata with the intention to kill her on her refusal to accept his proposal for marriage, the

respondent Sanjeev Kumar was admitted to interim Bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R.S. Pura vide his order dated 5.6.2012 in

FIR No. 84 of 2012 registered at police station R.S. Pura u/s 307 and 341 RPC on the basis of the statement made by Roman Lata to the police.

According to the FIR, the accused had been threatening Roman Lata to kill her even prior to the occurrence when she would refuse to accept his

proposal for marriage. The interim bail was allowed to the respondent on the ground that having faced the wrath of the police being in its custody

since May 27, 2012 and Bail being the Rule and refusal an Exception, he was entitled to interim bail as nothing was required to be recovered from

him.

The petitioner Yash Pal, Roman Lata's father has approached this Court invoking it inherent jurisdiction for quashing the learned Judicial

Magistrate's order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on records.

The photographs of the victim placed on record indicate her to have suffered burn injuries over left arm, part of throat and left side of face

extending to the forehead. Other smaller portions of the upper body too indicate burn injuries.

Roman Lata was still struggling in the hospital when the respondent was admitted to interim bail.

The records do not indicate as to what weighed with the learned Magistrate to consider grant of interim Bail, resort whereto it had only in

exceptional circumstances, and that too, after recording satisfaction as to the existence of circumstances warranting exercise of such power.

This did not, however, happen and the Magistrate appears to have granted interim bail to the respondents influenced by the fact that he was in

police custody for more than fifteen days. The factor that appears to have influenced the learned Magistrate, is not the only consideration that

should weigh with the: Magistrates in considering grant or refusal of bail in cases entailing higher punishment.

Be that as it may, the learned Magistrate appears to have acted with undue haste in admitting the respondent to interim bail and that too without

considering the seriousness of the allegations appearing against him in the FIR, the conditions of the victim, the permanent damage stated to have

been caused to her with disfiguration of parts of her body, besides the societal interests, which were required to be kept in mind while exercising

discretion in allowing or refusing bail to the respondent, for, even in cases where punishment provided for the offence, was not Death or

Imprisonment (or Life) Bail may not be permissible, as a matter of course, and regardless of the seriousness of the allegations against the accused.

Although, ordinarily this Court may not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the bail orders, interim or otherwise, yet the facts and

circumstances of the present case, when the respondent is alleged to have thrown acid on a young lady disfiguring her face and other parts of the

body, besides injuring her mind, body and soul, exercise of jurisdiction by this Court becomes a must to ensure that there was no abuse of the

process of Court, which the learned Magistrate's order, in the present case, has resulted in, because of his having considered the release of the

respondent on bail without considering the seriousness of the Charge and keeping in mind the condition of the victim, the interests of the Society,

the disfiguration of her face, the punishment provided for the offence and other factors which the law contemplates the Judicial Authorities to keep

in mind while considering grant or refusal of bail in heinous offences.

Therefore, finding that the process employed by the learned Magistrate was faulty for his omission to take into consideration the parameters

required to be kept in view while considering grant or refused of bail to an accused, as indicated above, his order dated 5.6.2012 cannot be

sustained.

This Petition accordingly succeeds and is, therefore, allowed quashing the learned Judicial Magistrate, R.S. Pura's order dated 5.6.2012.

Learned Judicial Magistrate consider the respondent's Application for Bail on its merit and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and

the prosecution in the matter. Respondent No. 1 be produced before the learned Magistrate on July 19, 2012 for appropriate orders on his

custody.