Safiya Malik

In a recent judgment, the High Court of Delhi addressed a bail application in an acid attack case that has been pending for over ten years. The court declined to grant regular bail to the accused but directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within one month. The decision follows delays despite previous orders from both the High Court and the Supreme Court for an expedited trial.

The case arises from an acid attack on December 23, 2014, in the Rajouri Garden area of Delhi. The victim, a senior resident doctor at a government hospital, was on her way to work when two individuals on a motorcycle allegedly snatched her bag and threw acid on her face. The attack resulted in serious injuries, including damage to her right eye. She was initially admitted to ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur, before being referred to AIIMS for further treatment.

According to the prosecution, the crime was allegedly planned by Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, who had a personal grievance against the victim after she declined his marriage proposal. The applicant, Vaibhav Kumar, is accused of assisting in the execution of the attack. The prosecution alleges that he was involved in hiring juveniles to carry out the crime and coordinating surveillance of the victim’s daily routine.

Investigators recovered chemical traces from the victim’s scooty, found near the crime scene. The prosecution argues that call records, witness testimonies, and forensic evidence establish the applicant’s involvement. CCTV footage from the vicinity was also examined to track the movements of the attackers before and after the incident.

The accused was arrested on December 26, 2014, and has been in judicial custody since then. The charge sheet was filed in 2017, but the trial has faced delays despite multiple court directives for its expeditious conclusion. The accused’s previous bail applications were denied in 2017 and 2023. In February 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed his Special Leave Petition seeking bail and directed the trial court to conclude the case within one month.

The High Court observed the delays despite clear instructions from higher courts. A report was sought from the trial court regarding the non-compliance. In response, the trial court stated that while some witnesses had been examined, multiple adjournments had occurred due to the absence of the public prosecutor and defense counsel. The transfer of the case between courts also contributed to the delay. The report stated, "The concerned Court was unaware of the time-bound nature of the matter due to the lack of communication of the orders of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court."

Despite this explanation, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court’s order from February 1, 2024, had been received by the trial court on February 9, 2024, yet the case remained incomplete. The court stated, "Such a prolonged delay in compliance with judicial directions defeats the very purpose of directing expeditious trial of a case."

The prosecution argued that the attack was premeditated and inflicted permanent injuries and scars on the victim. The case involves charges under Sections 326A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid), 392 (robbery), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution maintained that while delays in the trial were concerning, they could not serve as the sole basis for granting bail.

The court declined the accused’s bail application but issued specific directives to ensure the trial’s completion. It ordered that the case be assigned to a Fast-Track Court to ensure trial conclusion within one month. The court also directed that if the trial is not completed within the stipulated period, the accused would have the right to file a fresh bail application.

Additional directives included that any trial court judge handling a case with an expeditious trial directive must place the order on the first page of the judicial file, marked in bold red ink to indicate the time-sensitive nature of the matter. If a trial court remains vacant for a prolonged period, the Link Court must inform the District & Sessions Judge, who will take measures to reassign the case. The Registrar General was instructed to circulate the judgment to all District and Sessions Judges in Delhi to ensure compliance with expeditious trial directives in similar cases.

The court stated that while trial delays had occurred, the nature of the crime and the involvement of the accused required the case to be concluded swiftly rather than granting bail at this stage. "The concerned District & Sessions Judge will ensure that the case is assigned to Fast-Track Court for concluding trial within one month from the date of passing of this order. In case, the trial is not concluded within a month, the applicant will be at liberty to move a fresh application for bail, which will be heard and decided by this Court on the ground of delay in concluding trial, and on merit."

The judgment concluded with the direction that, "The learned Registrar General is requested to forward a copy of this judgment to all the District and Sessions Judges in Delhi, for its circulation among all the judicial officers, and for compliance." It further mandated, "A copy of the judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Trial Court as well as District and Sessions Judge, for ensuring conclusion of trial within one month from date."

Case Title: Vaibhav Kumar v. State Through SHO Rajouri Garden

Neutral citation:2025:DHC: 1332

Case Number: Bail Appln. 484/2025

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

[Read/Download order]