# Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal Singh (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 44814 of 2019
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-03
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 44814 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/swami-chinmayanand-krishna-pal-singh-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46329
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Law-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 376-C, 354-D, 342
, 506 & Code of Criminal Procedure
1973-Section 439-application-allowedit is a complete matter of quid pro
quo-greed
for
extracting
money
advanced the prosecutrix for hatching
a conspiracy against the accused and
tried to blackmail him.(Para 31)

At the stage of considering bail application,
detailed examination of the merits or demerits
of
the
materials
relied
upon
by
the
prosecution,
should
be
avoided.
The
jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised
on the basis of the well-settled principles
having regard to the facts and circumstances
of each case such as nature and severity of
punishment, character, behaviour, reasonable
apprehension
of
tampering
with
the
witnesses.(Para 17 to 23)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,751 of 43,537. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39751 for what follows._

1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law--Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961
- Sections 498-A, 304-
Section 3⁄4 Indian Penal Code, 1860application-adjournment-Counsel
for
applicant did not appear to argue-the
applicant is in jail for 3 years- counsel
did not show any interest to argue the
matter.(Para 2)

The matter is adjourned. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. A request has been made by Sri
Gaurav Kumar, Advocate holding brief
of Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel
for applicant to adjourn this matter
today.

2. This bail application is pending
since 2017 and applicant is in jail since
17.08.2016. It appears that learned
counsel for last more than three and
half years did not make any attempt to
argue the case and allowed detention of
his client in jail. Even today, he did not
show any interest by arguing the matter.
He does not want to give a chance to his
client to celebrate Holi at his residence.

3. Under these circumstances, I
have no option but to adjourn this
matter for today.

4. List in the next cause list.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1372
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 44814 of
2019

Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal
Singh ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Rajrshi Gupta, Sri
Manish Singh, Sri Raj Kumar Singh
Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri R.K. Jain, Sri Swetashwa
Agarwal

A.
Criminal
Law-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 376-C, 354-D, 342
, 506 & Code of Criminal Procedure
1973-Section 439-application-allowedit is a complete matter of quid pro
quo-greed
for
extracting
money
advanced the prosecutrix for hatching
a conspiracy against the accused and
tried to blackmail him.(Para 31)

At the stage of considering bail application,
detailed examination of the merits or demerits
of
the
materials
relied
upon
by
the
prosecution,
should
be
avoided.
The
jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised
on the basis of the well-settled principles
having regard to the facts and circumstances
of each case such as nature and severity of
punishment, character, behaviour, reasonable
apprehension
of
tampering
with
the
witnesses.(Para 17 to 23)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

1. St. of U.P. Thru CBI Vs. Amarmani
Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21

2. Shri P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI in Crl.
Appeal No. 1603 of 2019

3. Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. UOI & anr.in
W.P.(Crl) No. 67 of 2017
3-5 All. Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1373
4.
Gudikanti
Narasimhulu
Vs.
Public
Prosecutor,
HC
of
A.P.(1978)
AIR
429,(1978) SCR (2) 371

5.
Gurcharan
Singh
Vs.
St.(Delhi
Administration){ (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978
SCC (Cri) 41}

6. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. St. Of Punj.
(1980) 2 SCC 565

7. Nagendra Vs. King-Emperor (1924) AIR
Cal 476

8. Emperor Vs. Hutchinson (1931) AIR All
356

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Battery of lawyers headed by
Sri
Dileep
Kumar,
learned
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Rajrshi Gupta,
Manish
Singh,
Raj
Kumar
Singh
Chauhan for the applicant, Sri Ravi
Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal,
learned counsel for the complainant, Sri
SK Pal, learned G.A., Sri Ghanshyam
Kumar, learned AGA assisted by Sri
Mohd. Afzal, brief holder were heard at
length.

2. The pleadings between the
parties have been exchanged and matter
is ripe for final arguments.

3. The instant is a much discussed
case in the social media/news papers
which has created upheaval and turmoil
in the society whereby the accused
applicant Chinmayanand, Ex-Member
of Parliament who once also adorned
the post of Minister for internal affairs
in the Government of India is suffering
incarceration in jail since 20th August,
2019 in connection with Case Crime
No. 0445 of 2019, P.S. Kotwali, District
Shahjahanpur. The FIR of the case was
initially registered by Harish Chandra
Sharma, father of the alleged victim,
Miss "A", on 27.08.2019 under sections
364 and 506 IPC at P.S. Kowali,
District
Shahjahanpur
naming
the
applicant
Swami
Chanmayanand,
Rector
of
SS
Law
College,
Shahjahanpur as well as certain other
persons.
Eventually,
an
Special
Investigating Team, constituted on the
directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
when the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken
a suo moto cognizance Writ (Crl) No. 2
of 2019, entitling "In Re- MISSING
OF
AN
LL.M.
STUDENT
AT
SWAMI
SUKHDEVANAND
LAW
COLLEGE (SS LAW COLLEGE),
FROM SHAHJAHANPUR, U.P., vide
its direction dated 02.09.2019. The
aforesaid team, after collecting the
evidence
during
investigation,
submitted its report under section 173
(2) of the Code of Criminal Procdure
(in short "Cr.P.C.") under sections 376C, 354-D, 342 and 506 IPC against the
sole
named
accused-
Swami
Chinmayanand alias Krishna Pal Singh
and learned Magistrate took cognizance
for the aforesaid offence against the
accused.

4. In the FIR, lodged by Harish
Chandra Sharma, father of the alleged
victim, the complainant has admitted that
his daughter was persuing her LL.M.
Education
from
SS
Law
College,
Shahjahanpur and she was residing in the
hostel of the aforesaid College. He alleged
therein that since 23.08.2019, the mobile
telephone of the victim was switched off
and through the facebook account of (Miss
"A"-daughter of Harish Chand) saw certain
videos and pictures uploaded by the
daughter. For the first time, came to know
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that her daughter and some other girls were
being subjected to sexual misadventures by
the accused applicant and they are being
extended threats for their lives by his hired
goons. He further raised his eyebrows
alleging therein that his daughter is being
duped in hot water by the miscreants,
including
the
named
applicant.
In
advancement
of
the
allegation,
the
complainant
mentioned
that
the
whereabouts of his daughter is not known
and in distress. When he in-vainly tried to
contact the accused-Chinmayanand alias
Krishna Pal Singh on phone, yielded no
result, her room in the hostel of the alleged
victim was found locked. It was highlighted
in the aforesaid FIR that the accusedapplicant is a man of status, high stature
and being political giant, he along with his
accomplice is quite capable to spindle with
the evidence and room of the victim was
desired to be sealed by the authorities in
front of responsible media personals.

5. Beyond the aforesaid FIR, it is quite
evident that only relying upon the evidence of
the facebook account and uploaded videos,
father of the alleged victim has galvanized and
prompted the present FIR. It appears from the
text of the FIR, lodged by father that there was
no direct contact between the daughter and her
father. The relationship between father and the
daughter seems to be quite strange as they were
having no direct contacts and were alien to each
other and the father was taking stock of the
situation of his daughter through her facebook
account.

6. During the pendency of the present bail
application one more development came into
fora, when the copy of another FIR was
demonstrated before this Court, which was
lodged on 25.08.2019 for the incident occurred
on 22.08.2019 at P.S. Shahjahanpur, District
Shahjanapur lodged by one Om Singh,
Advocate,
the
legal
supervisor
of
the
Mumukshu Ashram, Shahjahanpur (said to be
owned by the accused applicant- Swami
Chinmayanand alias Krishna Pal Singh). In
fact, a case was lodged by Om Singh on
25.08.2019 for the incident of 22.08.2019
bearing CC No. 442 of 2019 under sections
387, 507 IPC and 67 of the Information
Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 against
unknown holder of mobile No. 8604207465
with the allegation on the holder of above
mobile, that the applicant (herein accused)
received a call on his mobile no. 9415326300
from the aforesaid phone (No. 8604207465)
demanding ransom of Rs. Five Crore and
threatening him of defamation in the society by
making certain nude videos and pictures of the
accused, viral in the social network, if the
aforesaid ransom demand remains unfulfilled.
The gist and substance of CC No. 442 of 2019,
lodged on 25.08.2019 derives that it was got
registered as a contrivance only to malign the
stature and status to the extent of assassination
of the applicant's character.

Fortifying the aforesaid narratives of the
allegations, it is contended that soon thereafter
sensing some rat in the dirty ragged story, father
of Miss "A"- Harish Chanda lodged CC No.
445 of 2019 on 27.08.2019 in a foxy manner
and design, two days after the aforesaid FIR,
enrolling applicant as accused and slapping all
sort of malicious allegations upon him to reduce
his high reputation into ashes. To build up
mountain of his argument, learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that the complainant of
the aforesaid FIR, even has diced his daughter
Miss "A" to win the dirty game for the sake of
monetary and material gains.

7. After lodging FIR No. 0442 of
2019 against the holder of mobile phone
number
8604207465,
the
police
investigated the matter by hotly pursued
accused, who were at run, who demanded
the ransom amount from the applicant. This
3-5 All. Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1375
fact was also much tossed in the print and
in the electronic media and the Hon'ble
Apex Court took suo-moto cognizance of
both the matters in Writ (Criminal) No. 2 of
2019 re: Missing of an LL.M student at
Swami Shukhdevana Law College (SS
Law College) from Shahjahanpur under
section PIL-W on the new papers report as
well as on online new portals stating
therein that an LL.M student Miss "A" of
the aforesaid College is missing from
24.08.2019, wherein the missing girl
levelled certain allegations on the persons
running the institutions in SS Law College.
When the the matter was taken up for
consideration by Hon'ble the Apex Court
on 30.08.2019, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners informed the Court that
the missing girl has been located in
Rajasthan
and
she
was
enroute
to
Shahjahanpur. It was directed by the Court
that the missing girl shall be produced
within two and half hours before the Court.
Thereafter on the same day at about 7.30
P.M. on 30.08.2019 the missing girl "A"
appeared before the Court. She stated
before the Court on camera, that prior to
Raksha Bandhan, she left Shahjahanpur
along with her three collegemates, who
were also her "family friends". She made
certain grievances against the institution as
well as the management of the College,
made certain apprehensions and refuted to
return to her home State without meeting
and conversing with her parents at Delhi.
Subsequently on the suggestions of the
Amicus Curiae, the registry of the Court
was directed to ensure the stay Miss "A" in
All India Woman's Conference "Bapnu
Ghar" at Bhagwan Das Marg, New Delhi
for four days the alleged victim girl was
also permitted to talk to her parents on
landline
phone
installed
therein.
Furthermore, relying upon the aforesaid
statement of Miss "A" the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi was directed to constitute a
police team for escorting the parents of
Miss "A" from Shahjahanpur to New Delhi
to meet her. On 2nd September 2019 the
case was again taken up by the Hon'ble
Apex Court.

8. Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the applicant
pointed out that in the aforesaid statement
the alleged victim girl before Hon'ble Apex
Court did not even whisper of any sexual
assault upon her by the applicant or any
other person at Shahjahanpur, though she
raised certain grievances against the
institution as well as the management. It is
contended by learned Senior Advocate Sri
Dilip Kumar that the victim is a major girl,
student
of
LL.M.
had
got
fullest
opportunity to share all her so-called
atrocities faced by her during almost one
year by the accused applicant, at least to
her
blood
relations
(parent)
but
astoundingly, kept mum and not only this
Miss "A" also maintained her aberrant
silence before the highest Court of the
country. A girl, whose virginity is at stake,
not uttering a single word to her own parent
or before the Court regarding the alleged
incident, is an astonishing conduct which
speak volumes about the ingeniousness of
the prosecution story.

9. Both the cases i.e. Case Crime No.
0445 of 2019 under sections 364 and 506
IPC and CIR No. 0442 of 2016 under
sections 387, 507 and 67 of the Information
and Technology Act were entrusted to the
Special
Investigation
Team
for
investigation, lead by Shri Navin Arora
(IGP, Public Grievance Cell).

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
has drawn attention of the Court to the
letter written by Miss "A" dated 05.09.2019
1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
addressed to the Incharge Inspector, Lodhi
Colony, South Delhi vide DD No. 42 -A
wherein for the first time, after her missing
report, she narrated the entire saga of
outrageous criminality committed upon her
since October 2018 to July 2019. The
aforesaid letter is self revealing wherein
she has given vivid description, giving
every minutest detail of alleged atrocities
and sexual advances/excesses faced by her
by none other but the applicant -Swami
Chinmayanand. The period of aforesaid
misdeeds has been mentioned to be from
October 2018 to July 2019 during which
she accused the applicant to forcibly make
his body massaged and perforce used to
establish corporeal relationship with her.
Thereafter her statement under section 161
Cr.P.C. was recorded and her Majid
statement was recorded on 13.09.2019
wherein she stated that she was subjected to
consistent rape during aforesaid period by
the accused applicant- Chinmayanand. In
the month of October 2018 during her stay
in the Hostel, she was taken by the goons
of the accused forcibly and forced to
massage and establish sexual relationship
with him. During this period, she purchased
an online spy camera (spectacle fit-in with
hidden camera), with which she used to
record the entire distasteful episodes. Her
statement recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C. on 16.09.2019, also contains almost
same flavour and texture with certain
modifications hither and thither. After
receiving directions from the Hon'ble Apex
Court, the Special Investigating Team was
constituted and on 04.11.2019. The SIT,
lead by Sri Navin Arora, after holding
thread bear investigation and probed both
the cases i.e., Case Crime Nos. 442 of 2019
and 445 of 2019 were entrusted to SIT.
After having in-depth probe, the SIT
submitted charge sheet and thereafter the
concerned Magistrate took cognizance in
both
the
offences
against
respective
accused persons on different dates. The SIT
after thrashing voluminous evidence in the
twin cases, summarized their story, salient
features unearthed therein are enumerated
herein below :

Miss "A" was a regular student B.A.,
LL.B., in the aforesaid College and after
completing the degree course, she was keen
to pursue future Master's course of study by
getting herself admitted in LL.M. Since her
merit was too low in the admission
test/graduation
(LL.B.)
course,
she
developed contacts with the applicant-
Chinmayanand, who is the Rector of the
aforesaid College. The applicant, using his
good authority and offices, got Miss "A"
admitted in the aforesaid Law College and
not only this he purchased and gifted a
Scooty and made its payment, through one
Vivek Gupta, not only this her boarding
was also arranged in the OBC hostel of the
College, mother of Miss "A" was given
employment in a school run by the Ashram.
All these benevolence showered upon Miss
"A" brought her closer to the accused
applicant. Miss "A" initially was forced to
go to Ashram thereafter she used to visit
the Ashram of the accused as a frequent
visitor, where she used to stay at with the
applicant, serve the accused-applicant and
not only this, she offered opportunity of
sexual advancement and affinity. In the
span of time Miss "A" purchased the
special spectacles, referred to above, and
recorded certain nude photographs/video
clips while massaging the applicant. In
order to black mail the accused applicant,
Miss
"A"
in
connivance
with
her
accomplices
namely,
Sanjay,
Sachin,
Vikram and few others in the garb of the
aforesaid photographs/video clips planned
to demand ransom from the applicant
threatening him to make those nude
pictures/video of the accused-applicant
3-5 All. Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1377
viral on the social media otherwise pay
ransom of Rs. Five Crores. All the accused
persons on a rented car motored to
Ghaziabad, Delhi, Shimla, Rajasthan and
other
places.
Meanwhile,
co-accused
Sanjay
somehow
managed
to
install
whatsapp application on his mobile using
SIM, issued from the ID and OTP of
mobile number no. 8604207465, which
belonged to another person. Thereafter,
using the aforesaid number, he took
screenshots of the selected obscene video
clips, prepared by Miss "A" and sent to
accused applicant- Chinmayanand's number
9415326300, demanding ransom of Rs.
Five Crores. In furtherance of the execution
of the aforesaid plan, to hingle the accused
applicant -Chinmayanand, on 09.08.2019
co-accused Sachin went to Chinmayanand's
Mumukshu Ashram for bargaining the
ransom amount in liu of the aforesaid
obscene photographs/video clips and kneel
him down before them.

11. To rebut the aforesaid allegations
levelled against Miss "A" and her accomplices,
father of Miss "A" Case Crime No. 445 of
2019, under sections 364/506 IPC was lodged
at P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur against
the
applicant-
Chinmayanad
and
other
unknown persons of the Mumukshu Ashram.

12. Perusal of the record establishes that
the applicant misused his position of stature in
getting Miss "A" admitted in the LL.M. (P.G.)
course. Not only this, on behalf of Miss "A" he
deposited the requisite fee of her class, provided
her accommodation in the hostel and part time
job to her in the e-Library, the employment of
the mother of Miss "A" in the Institution run by
Ashram. The relationship between both the
parties got deepened when Miss "A" started
serving the applicant at his personal level and
became a frequent visitor of applicant's
Ashram.

13. What is mind boggling, disturbing
and matter of concern is that a student of
LL.M., i.e. Miss "A" comes into contact with
the applicant, seeks and enjoys his 'patronage'
and 'benevolence' as well as on her family
members and in lieu of that she was said to be
exploited physically by the applicant, keeps
mum throughout the entire long period for
almost 9-10 months. She never shared anything
with anyone including her parents. On the other
hand, during those dark period, on her own,
purchased an spy-camera fitted goggles, from
which she shot nude pictures and recorded
videos of the accused, which were used by her
in demanding the ransom money from the
accused applicant, after blackmailing her.
During the entire period of the alleged atrocities
committed by the applicant, she was sharing
private moments with the applicant, got her
family member employed in the College and
other material benefits from the applicant.
There is nothing on record to show that she ever
objected to or raised any protest or divulged
anything adverse before the claimed incident.
Therefore, it is difficult to decipher as to who
has used whom ? It seems to be a matter of quid
pro quo.

14. The applicant, who is aged about
more than 72 years, suffering from number
of
ailments,
who
was
Member
of
Parliament and has once adorned the post
of State Minister for internal affairs in the
Government of India has got himself
involved in a most discreet incident and
that too for a considerable period of time,
as per the report of 173 (2) Cr.P.C. of the
police.

15. It is derived from the record that
for the first time her woos on 05.09.2019
busted out after coming in contact with her
parents at Delhi, prior to this date there is
not any whisper by her that the accused
applicant has exploited her. She never
1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shared the alleged nightmare faced by her
during last 9-10 months with her parents or
any near and dear ones.

16. Sri Ravi K. Jain, Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal refuted
the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the applicant tooth and nail. It
is submitted by Sri Jain, that a person who
adorn the position of Union Minister and
now Rector of group of educational
institution, stoop down to this level is
deplorable. He at this elderly age acted in
such a shabby manner and behavior,
exploited a young girl to quench his sexual
lust by using his musclemen to lift her
(victim) from hostel, developed affinity
with her and then compelled her to massage
him and then ravished her. Rebutting her
question marked conduct and behavior for
9-10 months raised by the learned counsel
for the applicant, it was argued that the
victim was being mercilessly exploited by
the applicant for 9-10 months and during
the entire weeping dark period, she was at
receiving end, therefore, to win over the
devastating situation, she mustered the
courage, stood straight and decided to take
revenge
by
exposing
the
demonized
character and behavior of the accused-
Chinmayanand.

Adding
spirit
to
his
aforesaid
argument
Sri
Jain
relied
upon
the
celebrated judgement of Hon'ble Apex
Court passed in the case of State of U.P.
Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi
[(2005) 8 SCC 21] whereby Hon'ble the
Apex Court has enumerated the factors,
while considering and deciding the bail
application,
extract
of
which
are
reproduced herein below:

"15. It is well settled that the
matters to be considered in an application
for bail are (i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence; (ii)
nature and gravity of the charge; (iii)
severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv)
danger
of
accused
absconding or fleeing if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position
and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood
of the offence being repeated; (vii)
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of
course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT,
Delhi 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan
Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR
1978 SC 179). .."

It is contended by Shri Jain, learned
Senior Advocate that accused-applicant is
an ex-union minister, a political giant
belonging to ruling party? He is involved in
the grevious offence of sexual exploitation
of young girl "Miss A". Besides this,
keeping in view his position standing in the
society, if released on bail, it is highly
likely that trial would not see its final day.

17. Before adjudicating the bail
application, the Court is conscious about
the "word of caution" provided by Hon'ble
the Apex Court in its recent judgment in
the case of Shri P. Chidambaram v.
Central Bureau of Investigation in
Criminal Appeal No. 1603 of 2019
[arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9269 of
2019] along with Criminal Appeal No.
1605 of 2019 [arising out of SLP (Crl)
No. 9445 of 2019] decided by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme
Court had deprecated the practice of giving
any finding on the merits, while deciding
the Bail Application. Paragraph 18 of the
judgement in the aforesaid case is relevant
in the matter, which has been enumerated
herein below:
3-5 All. Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1379

"18. In the present case, in the
impugned judgment, paras (51) to (70)
relate to the findings on the merits of the
prosecution case. As discussed earlier, at
the stage of considering the application for
bail, detailed examination of the merits of
the prosecution case and the merits or
demerits of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution, should be avoided. It is
therefore, made clear that the findings of
the High Court in paras (51) to (70) be
construed as expression of opinion only for
the purpose of refusal to grant bail and the
same shall not in any way influence the
trial or other proceedings."
(underlined by the Court).

18. On the aforesaid premises, this
Court is also shunning to express its
opinion on the merits of the case but the
fact remains that both the referred cases
has been investigated by the police
thoroughly and has submitted its report
under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., charge
sheet has also been filed and the learned
Magistrate
concerned
has
taken
cognizance of the offences in both the
cases. Besides this, the Bail Application
of Miss "A" was allowed by coordinate
Bench of this Court while deciding
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
43814 of 2019 on 04.12.2019 and all
the accomplices of her on different
occasions, who are accused of Case
Crime No. 442 of 2019.

19. In the present scenario where
this Court finds that it might be a case
of quid pro quo, the intriguing question
arises whether the applicant be granted
bail or not ? In this regard, let us
examine
the
Bail
in
criminal
jurisprudence
by
examining
the
celebrated judgements of Hon'ble Apex
Court. In the circumstances, principles
of law down in the case of Nikesh
Tarachand Shah v. Union of India
and another passed in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 67 of 2017 by the
Hon'ble Apex Court is flambeaus,
which
categorically
establishes
the
concept of validity and lucidity for
adjudication of bail to any person. For
ready reference, paragraph 13 of the
aforesaid judgement, is required to be
enumerated below, which runs as under
:

"13. What is important to learn
from this history is that clause 39 of
Magna
Carta
was
subsequently
extended to pre-trial imprisonment, so
that persons could be enlarged on bail
to secure their attendance for the
ensuing trial. It may only be added that
one century after the Bill of Rights, the
US Constitution borrowed the language
of the Bill of Rights when the principle
of habeas corpus found its way into
Article
1
Section
9
of
the
US
Constitution, followed by the Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution which
expressly states that, "excessive bail
shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted."

20. Therefore, perusal of the aforesaid
principles of law enunciated in the case of
Nikesh
Tarachand
Shah
(Supra)
categorically establishes that seeking bail is
the fundamental right of any person under
law, which cannot be suspended. It is the
sacrosanct duty of any court to protect life
and personal liberty of any person except
according to fair, just and reasonable
procedure established by valid law and here
the law laid down under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, which deals with
lives and personal liberty of any citizen,
1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can in no way be ignored or jeopardized in
any manner.

21. Now coming nearer home, it is
pertinent to mention the observation made
by Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J., in the case of
Gudikanti
Narasimhulu
v.
Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh [1978 AIR 429, 1978 SCR (2)
371] wherein the Court observed that the
issue of bail is one of the liberty, justice,
public safety and burden of the public
treasury, all of which insist that a
developed jurisprudence of bail is integral
to a socially sensitized judicial process.
After all, personal liberty of an accused or
convict is fundamental, suffering lawful
eclipse
only
in
terms
of
procedure
established by law. The last four words of
Article 21 are the life of that human right.

22. Similarly in the case of Gucharan
Singh
v.
State
(Delhi
Administration)[(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978
SCC (Cri) 41] it was observed as below :

"There cannot be an inexorable
formula in the matter of granting bail. The
facts and circumstances of each case will
govern the exercise of judicial discretion in
granting or cancelling bail."

23. Apart of all the aforesaid
citations, referred to above, this Court,
while adjudicating the instant bail
matter, is more focussing on the
principles laid down by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in the case of Shri
P.Chidambaram (Supra) wherein the
Court
has
described
well
settled
principles with regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case and the
factors, which are to be essentially
considered
while
adjudicating
bail
application of any applicant. For ready
reference, relevant paragraphs 22 and
23 of the aforesaid judgment are
enumerated herein below :

"22. The jurisdiction to grant bail
has to be exercised on the basis of the wellsettled principles having regard to the facts
and circumstances of each case. The
following factors are to be taken into
consideration
while
considering
an
application for bail:- (i) the nature of
accusation
and
the
severity
of
the
punishment in the case of conviction and
the nature of the materials relied upon by
the
prosecution;
(ii)
reasonable
apprehension
of
tampering
with
the
witnesses or apprehension of threat to the
complainant
or
the
witnesses;
(iii)
reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the time of trial
or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv)
character behaviour and standing of the
accused and the circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest
of the public or the State and similar other
considerations (vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v.
NCT, Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC
280). There is no hard and fast rule
regarding grant or refusal to grant bail.
Each case has to be considered on the facts
and circumstances of each case and on its
own merits. The discretion of the court has
to be exercised judiciously and not in an
arbitrary manner."

24. The aforesaid essential ingredients
with regards to the facts and circumstances
as well as the factors, emanating therein,
are the alma mater for consideration of any
bail application lying before this Court.

25. Though, learned counsel for the
informant has tried to establish that there
was a conspiracy hatched by the applicant
against Miss "A" and the conspiracy has
3-5 All. Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1381
given birth to the FIR mentioning therein
the ransom and blackmailing of the accused
by Miss "A"
and her accomplices,
therefore, the application for bail of the
accused application is liable to be rejected.

26. Sri Dilip Gupta, learned Senior
Advocate for the applicant has tried to
fortify his argument by drawing attention
of the Court towards the case of Dataram
Singh v. State of U.P. and another
reported in reported in AIR 2018 SC
980, specially paragraph 17, extract of
which is referred to herein below :

"17. In our opinion, it is not
necessary to go into the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations made against
the appellant. This is a matter that will, of
course, be dealt with by the trial judge.
However, what is important, as far as we
are concerned, is that during the entire
period of investigations which appear to
have been spread over seven months, the
appellant
was
not
arrested
by
the
investigating
officer.
Even
when
the
appellant apprehended that he might be
arrested after the charge sheet was filed
against him, he was not arrested for a
considerable period of time. When he
approached the Allahabad High Court for
quashing the FIR lodged against him, he
was granted two months time to appear
before the trial judge. All these facts are an
indication that there was no apprehension
that the appellant would abscond or would
hamper the trial in any manner. That being
the case, the trial judge, as well as the High
Court ought to have judiciously exercised
discretion
and
granted
bail
to
the
appellant. It is nobody's case that the
appellant is a shady character and there is
nothing on record to indicate that the
appellant had earlier been involved in any
unacceptable activity, let alone any alleged
illegal activity."

27. Hon'be the Apex Court after
thrashing the case of Nikesh Tarachand
Shah (Supra) going back to the decision of
Magna Carta. In that decision, reference
was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.
State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565)
wherein it is observed that it was held way
back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor (AIR
1924 Cal 476) that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment. Reference was
also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson
(AIR 1931 All 356) wherein it was
observed that grant of bail is the rule and
refusal is the exception. The provision for
bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is
almost a century old, going back to colonial
days.

28. However, it does not meant that
bail should be granted in every case
liberally rather while adjudicating any bail
application, the Court must consider
authentic
evidence
collected
during
investigation, available on record with
humanity and compassion and if it thinks
that there are possibilities of granting bail
to an accused, the conditions thereof should
not be so strict that it turns to be incapable
to be complied with and thus making the
bail order illusionary.

29. Thus taking into stock of all the
facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of the learned counsel for the
rival parties, discussions referred to herein
above, especially the principles of law and
the essential factors to be focused upon
while adjudicating any bail application by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest case of
Shri P. Chidambaram v. CBI (Supra),
1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this Court is drawing its conclusion in the
instant case.

30. No doubt, the accusations leveled
against the accused- Chinmayanad (who is
supposed to have deep influence in the society
as well in the administration because of his
atomizing stature), are severe and there are
reasonable apprehensions of his tampering with
the evidence, which endangers the security of
the presence of the rival party/s during the trial,
as well as the circumstances, which are peculiar
to the octogenarian accused, who is suffering
from number of old age ailments, as canvassed
by the learned Senior Advocate of the applicant,
has further agitated that the medical evidence of
Miss "A" is also unable to sufficiently indicate
that she was subject to sexual exploitation for a
long time. Besides this, the police after holding
an indepth probe into the matter has submitted
in charge sheet under sections 376 C, 354 D,
342 and 506 IPC. The maximum punishment is
under section 376 C IPC, not less than five
years but extend to ten years because legislation
in its own wisdom has excluded this offence
from the realm of 'Rape'. In this connection, it is
worthwhile to point out here that the learned
Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the
offences and blurred chances of any tempering
of evidence at this stage. It is also canvassed
that accused of Case Crime No. 445 of 2019,
Miss "A" was already admitted on bail in
extortion matter by a coordinate Bench of this
Court that there is no justifiable reason to deny
the bail to the present applicant- Chinmayanad.
As pointed out earlier, that both the parties
crossed their limits and at this stage it is very
difficult to adjudicate as to who exploited
whom?? In fact, both of them used each other.

31. To the contrary it is also noteworthy
there are material on record where the family
members of Miss "A" were being benefited out
of the solipsistic behavior of the accused
applicant. It is also noticeable that there is also
nothing on record that during the period of the
alleged atrocities committed upon Miss "A" she
made any complaint or even any whisper to her
family members against the accused applicant,
therefore, at this juncture, this Court draws its
conclusion that it was a complete matter of quid
pro quo but over a span of time the greed for
extracting "more", she along with her
accomplices seems to have advanced for
hatching a conspiracy against the applicant and
tried to black mail him for ransom, through the
obscenic video clips recorded by herself.

32. It is apprehended by the
complainant that the accused applicant -
Swami Chinmayanad alias Krishna Pal
Singh is an affluent giant robust personality
of Shahjahanpur, therefore, he may infringe
law of the land in any manner, he has the
capacity to influence/tamper the evidence
and thus fair trial in his home town i.e.
Shahjahanpur
may
be
affected.
The
apprehension raised by the complainant is
not
unfounded
and
this
Court
acknowledging the same is duty bound to
give sun on the path of justice to the court
below in accordance with law.

33. This Court is conscious of the fact
that many times, the learned trial courts
sway away be the observations of the Apex
Court while adjudicating the bail orders. It
is, therefore, earnestly directed that no
observation of this Court in passing this
order shall effect either ways by the trial
court during trial. The trial court would
apply its own judicial discretion and
accused while adjudicating the trial of the
instant case.

34. In view of the above, let the
applicant-Swami
Chinmayanand
alias
Krishna Pal Singh, be released on bail on
his
executing
a
personal
bond
and
furnishing two heavy sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
3-5 All. Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1383
concerned in case crime no. 0445 of 2019,
under Sectrions 376-C, 354-D, 342 and 506
IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur
with the following conditions:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL
FILE
AN
UNDERTAKING
TO
THE
EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK
ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE
FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE
WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN
CASE
OF
DEFAULT
OF
THIS
CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR
THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS
ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS
ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL
REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER
PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR
COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE
, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE
TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST
HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT
MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING
TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS
PRESENCE
PROCLAMATION
UNDER
SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED
AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR
BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE
FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN,
THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE
PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST
HIM
IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER
SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL
REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE
THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED
FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2)
FRAMING
OF
CHARGE
AND
(3)
RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER
SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION
OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF
THE APPLICANTS ARE DELIBERATE OR
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT
SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL
COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS
ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND
PROCEED
AGAINST
HIM
IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY
MAKE
ALL
POSSIBLE
EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO
CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE
RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

35. However, it is made clear that any
violation of above conditions by the applicant,
shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail
so granted by this court and the trial court is at a
liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the
reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of
the condition mentioned above.

36. After release of the applicant by the
court of Shahjahanpur it is further directed
that trial of both the aforementioned criminal
cases i.e., CC No.