-
by sayum
19 December 2025 10:48 AM
Despite Unjustified Delays, The Gravity of the Offense and Strong Evidence Warrant Continued Custody - In a significant ruling Delhi High Court denied bail to Vaibhav Kumar, accused in a brutal acid attack case, despite acknowledging prolonged delays in trial proceedings. The Court observed that "judicial delays cannot be indefinite, but at the same time, bail in heinous offenses cannot be granted solely on the ground of procedural lapses."
The bail plea was filed in connection with FIR No. 1525/2014, registered at Rajouri Garden Police Station, under Sections 326A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid), 392, 394, 397, 120B, 411, and 34 of the IPC. The applicant had sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), citing excessive delay in trial despite multiple directives from higher courts.
"Judicial Delay Cannot Be a License for Release in Heinous Crimes" – High Court Balances Speedy Trial and Public Safety
The accused had previously filed multiple bail applications, all of which were rejected by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. The last order by the Apex Court, dated February 1, 2024, directed the trial court to conclude the case within one month. However, despite repeated directions, the trial remained incomplete.
The applicant’s counsel contended that "Vaibhav Kumar has been in custody for over ten years, arrested at the age of 20 and now 31, with no end to his incarceration in sight. His father passed away in 2019, and his mother is half-paralyzed, with no one to care for her." He argued that the charge sheet was filed in 2017, yet the prosecution failed to complete the trial, violating the right to a speedy trial.
The Court acknowledged the serious lapse in the administration of justice, stating that "judicial delay must never defeat the rights of an undertrial. When a trial is not concluded despite repeated court orders, the system itself stands in violation of fundamental rights." However, the Court was firm in ruling that "in cases of such grave nature, where evidence strongly suggests the accused’s direct involvement, release on bail cannot be granted solely due to trial delays."
"Accused Played a Key Role in Acid Attack Conspiracy" – Court Finds Strong Evidence Against Applicant
The prosecution presented evidence that Vaibhav Kumar was not a mere bystander but an active conspirator in planning and executing the acid attack on Dr. ‘A,’ a senior resident doctor. The attack, allegedly orchestrated by co-accused Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, was an act of revenge after the victim rejected his marriage proposal.
The Court noted that "the accused was instrumental in hiring juveniles to carry out the attack, procuring the acid, conducting surveillance on the victim’s movements, and participating in rehearsals of the attack using syringes filled with water." He was also responsible for coordinating communication between the attackers and ensuring the disposal of stolen items post-attack.
The prosecution argued that "given the severity of the crime, the impact on the victim, and the overwhelming evidence against the applicant, trial delays should not be used as a pretext to grant bail." The Court found merit in this argument, ruling that "when a crime has been committed with such deliberation and planning, granting bail merely due to procedural lapses would be a travesty of justice."
"Court Expresses Displeasure Over Non-Compliance with Supreme Court's Order for Expedited Trial"
The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the delay in trial despite clear orders from both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. Referring to the Apex Court’s February 1, 2024, order directing the trial’s completion within a month, the High Court noted that the trial court failed to comply, citing a lack of proper communication of orders.
The Court observed that "such a lack of coordination in the judicial system is deeply concerning. The failure to prioritize a case despite Supreme Court orders reflects systemic inefficiencies that must be addressed immediately."
To prevent further delays, the Court directed that:
• The case be assigned to a Fast-Track Court, ensuring trial completion within one month.
• The District & Sessions Judge must personally oversee compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive.
• Any further failure to conclude the trial within one month would give the accused liberty to reapply for bail, which would be reconsidered on the grounds of delay.
"Judicial System Must Prevent Delay, But Public Safety Cannot Be Compromised" – Court Issues New Procedural Directives
The Court underscored the need for reforms in handling time-sensitive cases, ruling that "whenever a higher court issues a directive for expedited trial, it must be prominently recorded in the case file and brought to the immediate attention of the presiding judge."
Directing systemic improvements, the Court ordered that "all trial courts must ensure that directives for time-bound trials are visibly marked on case files, preventing miscommunication and ensuring strict compliance with judicial mandates."
Refusing to grant bail at this stage, the High Court ruled that "given the gravity of the crime and the accused’s active role in the conspiracy, release on bail is unwarranted. However, the prosecution and trial court are given a final opportunity to conclude the case within one month, failing which a fresh bail application will be considered."
The Delhi High Court’s ruling balances the fundamental right to a speedy trial with the need to ensure that serious offenders do not evade justice. While acknowledging the failure of the judicial system in timely case resolution, the Court reaffirmed that procedural delays cannot be the sole ground for bail in heinous crimes.
By setting a strict one-month deadline for trial completion and warning of bail reconsideration in case of further delays, the judgment ensures that both the rights of the accused and the interests of justice are protected.
Date of Decision: 28 February 2025
