The Allahabad High Court upheld its decision to deny bail for four individuals accused of perpetrating an acid attack on a woman bank manager in 2022 within UP's Kaushambi district. The attack allegedly occurred following the woman's refusal to approve loan applications that did not meet the necessary qualifications.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, serving as the Single Judge, declined bail for the accused individuals, taking into account the evidence gathered during the investigation. This evidence included details regarding the purchase of acid, the direct involvement of certain individuals, and the supporting roles attributed to others involved in the incident.

The court emphasized the significance of Call Detail Record (CDR) details, highlighting that all applicants and other co-accused were implicated in a broad conspiracy. According to the prosecution's narrative, the victim, employed as a Bank Manager, was ambushed by two individuals on a motorcycle while en route to her office. They allegedly perpetrated the attack by hurling acid at her.

In the course of the investigation, the identities of the applicant and other co-accused emerged. Allegedly, they all operated as brokers within the bank, facilitating the approval of loans and other transactions. This revelation sheds light on their potential motives and roles in the unfortunate incident.

The allegations against the accused suggest that the victim faced pressure when she rejected certain loan applications while fulfilling her responsibilities as a Bank Manager. Despite this pressure, when she did not yield to their demands, it allegedly resulted in her being subjected to an acid attack. This sequence of events underscores the gravity of the situation and the potential consequences of resisting such coercion.

In their plea for bail, the accused individuals petitioned the High Court, citing their prolonged incarceration since August 2022 and expressing concerns over the absence of an imminent trial. Conversely, the State Counsel opposed the bail applications on behalf of the accused, likely citing the severity of the charges and the potential risks associated with releasing them pending trial.

The Court highlighted that the victim bore the consequences of not yielding to pressure to engage in an illegal act by approving unqualified loan applications. Despite this, the Court directed the Trial Court to exert every effort to promptly conclude the trial. If the victim's statement had not yet been recorded, the Court mandated that it should be recorded within six months. This directive aims to ensure timely justice and accountability in the case.

Case title - Man Singh vs. State of U.P and connected petitions 2024