KHEM SINGH. Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mrs. Pratima Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General. I have also heard Mr. Khajuria, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Separate replies filed by both the respondents have also been perused. petitioner's prayer for cancellation of bail of respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 has defended the impugned order and submits and prays that this petition be dismissed and the impugned order be up-held.

(2.) THE allegation against the respondent No.2 is that on 27-5-2005 in a Bus, the respondent No.2 threw acid on the victim girl named Mamta. Actually in the process of the acid being thrown allegedly by respondent No.2, not only Mamta but others also got burn injuries because in the process, the acid came to be thrown over others as well. Ofcourse, Mamta received very serious burn injuries and till date, as per the statement of Mr. J.K.Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, she continues to be admitted in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, New Delhi. Her eyes and face were badily affected as well as dis-figured by the aforesaid burn injuries. Apparently, she is still not out of a difficult medical situation. She admittedly has lost vision of one eye because of the burn injuries and in the other eye, she is facing problem.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, but without spelling out the detailed reasons lest such reasons might influence the outcome of the trial, I set aside the impugned order and direct that the respondent no.1 be taken into custody. Respondent No.2 is present in person in the Court today along with his counsel Mr. K.B. Khajuria. I direct Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, to ensure that respondent No.2 is taken into custody in the Court itself.