The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused in a serious acid attack case despite the gravity of the charges, emphasizing the absence of direct incriminating evidence in the dying declaration and a significant delay in lodging the FIR. The order underscores that bail is not a reward for innocence but a recognition of procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence pending trial.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Saif, is accused in Crime No. 384 of 2025 under Sections 80(2), 85, 124(1), 351(1), 352 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, at Police Station Didauli, District Amroha. The case arises from an alleged acid attack on the deceased, who was his sister-in-law. The applicant is the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased. Another brother-in-law, Monees, is also named as an accused.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred on 11.08.2025
- The FIR was lodged on 26.08.2025, after a delay of 15 days
- The deceased made a dying declaration, recorded by a medical officer, but did not name Saif or Monees as the perpetrator
- The dying declaration broadly implicated the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-laws without specifying individuals
- Seven prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s father and other family members, were examined before the trial court
- All seven witnesses were declared hostile by the trial court due to inconsistent or contradictory testimony
- The applicant has no prior criminal record
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.10.2025
Procedural History
- 11.08.2025: Alleged incident of acid attack
- 26.08.2025: FIR registered after 15-day delay
- 15.10.2025: Applicant arrested and taken into custody
- 25.06.2026: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12539 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court
- 25.06.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The applicant is falsely implicated with no specific evidence linking him to the crime
- The dying declaration does not name him or Monees, rendering it inconclusive against him
- The delay in filing the FIR raises suspicion of collusion or mala fide intent
- All prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, undermining the case
- No prior criminal antecedents
- He will not misuse bail and will fully cooperate in trial
For the Respondent (State)
- There is sufficient material to suggest the applicant’s involvement
- The nature of the offence is grave and warrants continued custody
- The FIR, though delayed, was filed after due investigation
- The general allegations in the dying declaration, combined with circumstantial evidence, are sufficient to oppose bail
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail pending trial, with conditions to ensure his presence and cooperation in judicial proceedings.
The Legal Issue
Can bail be granted in a serious non-bailable offence under the D.P. Act and B.N.S. when the dying declaration does not specifically implicate the accused, the FIR is delayed, and all prosecution witnesses have turned hostile?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for the applicant relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the evidence is weak or inconclusive. He cited State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to argue that the absence of direct evidence in the dying declaration, coupled with hostile witnesses and a delayed FIR, creates reasonable doubt about the applicant’s involvement. He emphasized the applicant’s clean record and prolonged incarceration without trial.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Advocate contended that the gravity of the offence under the D.P. Act and B.N.S. - involving grievous harm and potential murder - justifies denial of bail. He argued that the general allegations in the dying declaration, even if not naming the applicant, are corroborated by the circumstances of the case and the proximity of the accused to the victim. He further submitted that the delay in FIR does not automatically invalidate the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to evaluate the merits of the prosecution’s case or the credibility of the evidence. Instead, it focused on the procedural and evidentiary posture of the case at the bail stage. The Court noted that the dying declaration, while admissible, does not specifically name the applicant or his co-accused Monees, and instead makes a general reference to "brother-in-laws." The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rests heavily on the testimony of seven witnesses, all of whom have been declared hostile by the trial court - a fact that significantly weakens the evidentiary foundation.
"The absence of any specific mention of the applicant in the dying declaration, combined with the hostile nature of all prosecution witnesses, raises a legitimate doubt as to the strength of the case against him."
The Court further noted the 15-day delay in lodging the FIR, which, while not fatal, contributes to the overall assessment of the case’s reliability. The Court emphasized that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 15.10.2025, a period exceeding eight months without trial. The Court held that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be balanced against the interests of justice, and where the prosecution’s case is not prima facie strong, bail must be granted subject to strict conditions.
The Court explicitly clarified that its observations on the weakness of evidence are not a comment on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the applicant, and that the trial court remains free to form its own opinion based on the evidence adduced at trial.
The Verdict
The bail application is allowed. The applicant, Saif, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (i) He shall not seek adjournments on dates when witnesses are present; (ii) He shall appear before the trial court on all dates, personally or through counsel; (iii) He shall remain present for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; (iv) Breach of any condition shall lead to cancellation of bail and initiation of proceedings under Sections 229-A IPC, 269 B.N.S., 174-A IPC, and 209 B.N.S. Sureties shall be verified before release. The applicant shall not interfere with witnesses or tamper with evidence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Dying Declarations Must Be Specific to Implicate
- Practitioners must challenge bail in cases where dying declarations are vague or general, especially when multiple accused are named without distinction
- A general reference to "family members" without naming the accused cannot sustain opposition to bail
- Courts should treat such declarations as corroborative, not conclusive, at the bail stage
Hostile Witnesses Undermine Prosecution’s Prima Facie Case
- When all prosecution witnesses turn hostile, the prosecution’s case collapses at the bail stage unless strong independent evidence exists
- This creates a strong ground for bail applications in cases relying on eyewitness testimony
- Defence counsel should highlight hostile witness status as a decisive factor in bail hearings
Delay in FIR Is a Relevant Factor, Not a Fatal Defect
- While delay alone does not entitle an accused to bail, it must be weighed with other factors like lack of specific evidence
- Courts are increasingly treating unexplained delays as indicators of possible fabrication or collusion
- Defence should document and highlight delays in FIR filing as part of a broader bail strategy
