Allahabad HC Reserves Order On Chinamyanand's Bail Plea

Chinmayanand was arrested by the SIT on September 20, after the victim gave a pen drive to the SIT to support her allegations, and has been in custody since then. The Sessions Court at Shahjahanpur rejected his bail plea on September 30, pursuant to which he approached the high court.

On Saturday, Justice Rahul Chaturvedi heard the arguments from both the parties. Detailing the nuances of the case, Advocate Swetashwa Agarwal told Live Law that the defence had sought bail on three primary grounds:

1. The prosecution case was fabricated inasmuch as there was no whisper in the Supreme Court order about any act of rape committed by Swami Chinmayanand and it was only at the behest of legal advice that the victim moved an application before the Delhi Police, alleging rape.
2. Spy cameras that were allegedly used by the victim to record the alleged illegalities committed on her had been deliberately concealed. It was contended that since the source of the videos was missing, the videos could not be used as evidence against Chinmayanand.
3. Since the FIR against the victim for committing extortion had been filed prior in time, the victim posted a live video on Facebook, leveling allegations of rape, as a counterblast to the apprehension of legal action.

In response, the State argued:

1. Merely because the Supreme Court did not mention the word "rape" in its order would not give any benefit to the defence case. It was submitted that the Supreme Court did not expressly use the word "rape" in its only order as a cautious measure, so as to not prejudice the case of the victim or the accused. Moreover, the constitution of an SIT to investigate the matter and setting up of a monitoring bench at the high court was indicative enough of the sensitivity of the matter. Hence, the defence could not be allowed to "read between the lines of the Supreme Court order".
2. The videos submitted to the SIT could be verified by the forensic laboratory and that there was no need of the main source, i.e., the recording device.
3. A prima facie case was made out against the accused, based on the statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC, statements of family members of the victim and other evidences. It was submitted that the extortion case being a separate offence, bearing a separate crime number, its evidence could not be "read into" the rape case and that matter had to be decided on its own merits.
4. The court must "lift the veil" and see the actual offence committed against the victim. Particularly, it was argued that the case of extortion was distinguishable from present case of rape and even if the allegations of extortion against the victim were assumed to be true, the same could not be reckoned as mitigating circumstances in an offence, as grave as rape.
5. The charge sheet against Chinmayanand had been filed under Section 376C of IPC, which criminalizes sexual intercourse by a person in authority. Stating that the courts hands were not tied merely because the SIT had proceeded under a "weaker Section", it was pleaded the Court should frame charge of Rape against Chinmayanand, as punishable under Section 376 of IPC and should punish him with life imprisonment.

It was further argued that the entire investigation was tainted; as the accused being an influential man having been a Member of the Parliament thrice, influenced the state machinery.

It was also contended in light of the principles for grant of bail, as discussed by the Supreme Court in State Through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, (2005)8 SCC 21, that the accused should not be set free on bail as he was in an influential position and could tamper the witnesses.

The victim was a LLM candidate at Swami Shukdevanand Law, where Chinmayanand is the director. The case came into lime light in August this year, after she leveled allegations of sexual harassment against Chinmayanand by posting a live video on Facebook. She had also claimed that her and her family's lives were at stake as Chinmayanand had been threatening to kill them constantly.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A. S. Bopanna had taken suo moto cognizance of the matter when the girl went missing from her college hostel, three days after the video got viral. Soon after she was traced in Jaipur, the bench directed to transfer the complainant to another college for pursuing her degree and refused to meet her again. The matter was disposed of with a clarification that the proceedings were only to ensure her safety and that her education was not hampered, and she could make further submissions before the SIT. The Supreme Court also constituted a monitoring bench at the Allahabad High Court to keep a check on the SIT probe.

On September 25, the victim was taken into custody by the SIT, on charges of extortion and blackmailing. It was revealed that the law student's call detail records indicated that she and her friends had exchanged over 4,300 calls this year, most of those being exchanged in August, proximate to the time when the alleged extortion call was made.

Her bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court at Shahjahanpur on September 30, consequent to which she approached the High Court. Her bail plea in the high court was listed before Justice Manju Rani Chauhan on November 6, who granted time to the State to file counter affidavit and posted the matter for November 29.

Notably, the high court monitoring bench which has been overseeing the SIT probe is also set to take up the case on November 28, where it is expected to consider the representations of the victim's family members, who were allegedly assaulted by the SIT.