The LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has rejected the regular bail application of 37-year-old Janata Adak, also known as Jantu Adhak, who is accused of carrying out a brutal acid attack on a co-worker. Presiding Judge Sri. S. Nataraj dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the nature of the crime and the severity of the allegations outweighed the grounds presented for the accused’s release.
The case, registered as Crl.Misc.No.10665/2022, stems from an incident at a silver and gold workshop under the jurisdiction of the Ulsoor Gate Police Station. The court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s stringent stance on acid-related violence, which is viewed as a violation of the most fundamental human rights.
Background of the Incident and Legal Proceedings
According to the prosecution’s records, Janata Adak, a resident of Calcutta, worked alongside the complainant and other witnesses in a jewelry shop owned by a person identified as CW-4. The incident occurred in the early hours of May 30, 2022. It is alleged that Adak was engaged in a heated verbal altercation with another employee, CW-2, whom he reportedly assaulted with a wooden club.
The situation escalated when the primary complainant, referred to as CW-1, began recording a video of the assault on his mobile phone to provide evidence to their employer. Noticing the recording, the accused allegedly turned his fury toward CW-1. After shouting abuses in Bengali, Adak is accused of seizing a container of acid kept in the shop for jewelry processing and throwing it directly onto the face and body of CW-1. The victim sustained severe burn injuries as a result of the attack.
The police subsequently arrested Adak and charged him under Sections 326-A (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments for and Against Bail
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. Abdul Majeed Khan, argued that the incident was not a premeditated act of violence but rather a result of a sudden fight and workplace rivalry. He contended that the investigation was already complete and the charge sheet had been filed, meaning that continued custodial detention was unnecessary. Furthermore, the defense pointed out that Adak is the sole breadwinner for his family, including aged parents, a wife, and children, and has no prior criminal record.
Conversely, the Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea. The prosecution highlighted the heinous nature of the crime, noting that the accused used a corrosive substance to permanently disfigure the victim. They argued that if released, Adak might flee to his home state, threaten witnesses, or tamper with the ongoing legal process.
Judicial Observations on Acid Attacks and Section 326-A
In its detailed reasoning, the court addressed several critical legal points regarding acid attacks. The judge noted that photographs submitted with the charge sheet clearly showed the victim’s face before and after the incident, depicting significant burn injuries.
Addressing the defense’s argument that a wound certificate was missing from the initial documents, the court cited a Supreme Court precedent (Maqbool Vs State of UP), which established that under Section 326-A, the specific classification of an injury as “simple” or “grievous” is secondary to the act of using acid itself. The mere act of throwing acid with the knowledge that it will cause injury is sufficient to attract the stringent provisions of the law.
The court further referenced the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in the case of Mahesha Vs State, which stated that an acid attack is not just a physical injury but a crime against basic human rights and a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Conclusion of the Court
The court observed that Section 326-A was specifically introduced into the IPC to provide stringent punishment for such life-altering crimes. The offence carries a minimum punishment of ten years and can extend to life imprisonment.
The judge remarked that the filing of a charge sheet does not lessen the allegations but rather confirms that the investigation has found sufficient grounds for a trial. Given the gravity of the offence and the high probability of witness intimidation, the court concluded that Janata Adak was not entitled to bail. The petition was dismissed, and the accused will remain in custody pending the conclusion of the trial.