Swami Bal Nath vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—This is the first bail application moved on behalf of applicant Swami Bal Nath, son of Yogi Ram Nath Swami, in Case Crime No. 988/06, under Sections 354/376 (2)C/504, IPC, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

The first informant, who is a Press Reporter, made a written complaint to the S.H.O. Sihani Gate, Gaziabad on 30112006. The same is quoted as under :

�To the S.H.O. Sihani Hate Ghaziahad Dear Sir I am a reporter with NDTV New Delhi. I had received information from a source that Baba Bal Nath running Baba Balnath Ashram in Seva Nagar where about 56 girls were housed, was mentally physically and sexually abusing some of the girls here. I alongwith Rishi Kant from Shakti Vahini came here under cover and spoke to severed girls and realized that this was indeed happening here. I also recorded on Video Tape turd �hidden Camera�. The statement several girls at this ashram in which they describe how the Baba used to beat them and sexually abuse them. To day I and Rishi and Mrs. Roomi Depratta from the NOIO stop contacted the new and alongwith CIST raided the Ashram. We would like you to take the strict action as per the land against the baba sd vnreadevte. Rishi Kant (SHAKTI VAHINI) sd vn readvte. Anchal Vohara (NDTV) �

On the basis of the above written report, Case Crime No. 988 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 354, 376(2)C and 504, IPC. Was registered at the concerned police station.

Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjay Shukla and Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, for applicant and learned A.G.A. at length. I have also perused the whole records very carefully,

Learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that since 1975, not a single complaint moved against the applicant by any person where 5060 children lived in the Ashram and the applicant solemnised the marriage of Shalloo, Seeta, Geeta, Urmila, Romul and Sonu in between 1997 and 2001 and given Kanyadan to all the girls as their father do. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to yellow generalism. It is further submitted that the applicant had moved an application on 30112006 against one Sameer Gupta, which was not registered. Hence an F.I.R. was lodged on 1122006 as a counter blast. It is also submitted that as per the Ashram constitution, eleven members, who are at the held of the affairs, are responsible for the proper running of the society. The periodical checking of the inmates was carried on by the Mantri Sanchalak and the other respectable members of the society. On Mr. Sameer Gupta introduced himself as a Social reformer and started coming about one year back and at the break of one or two days in the Ashram. lie told that he was interested to give computer education to the inmates of the Ashram for which he installed computer in the Ashram. The applicant and the other computer did not train the inmates due to English language; hence they restrained the entry of Sameer Gupta. It is further alleged that on 6112006, the father of Sameer Gupta had taken back the computer due to which Sameer Gupta influenced Rishi Kant, Press Reporter and false and fabricated F.I.R. was lodged. It is further submitted that after lodging the F.I.R., the five girls were medically examined on 2122006 in Women Hospital, Mathura. In the medical examination of Preeti, hymen was found intact and no mark of injury was found on her person as well as on her private part. On the examination of Rubi, the hymen was found intact and no mark of injury was found. Similar is the medical examination reports of Anita, Raj Kumari. The medical examination reports are not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of several inmates including the five inmates, namely, Preeti, Raj Kumari, Anita, Chhoti Preeti and Rubi under the pressure of Press Reporter. It is further submitted that the medical reports and the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. are contradictory with each other and the Investigating Officer found no other evidence. The statements of prosecutrix under Section 164, Cr. P.C. was not recorded. It''s further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged only to humiliate the applicant without any fault and the main purpose behind it is to grab the Ashram and land by ousting the applicant. The Ashram did not receive any aid either from Government or from N.R.I''s. Therefore, this bail application is liable to be allowed.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application by submitting that the applicant is the Manager of the Ashram and there is allegation of rape against him with the inmates of the Ashram. The F.I.R. was lodged by the Press Reporter and the case is made out according to the statements of prosecutrix. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail

During the course of investigation, the inmatesvictim Anita, Raj Kumari, Preeti, Rubi and Chhoti Preeti have been medically examined by the doctor. Similarly, their statements were also recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Inmatesvictim Anita, Raj Kumari, Preeti and Chhoti Preeti had not made any allegation against the applicant for committing the offence of rape. There is only one statement of Preeti who involved the present applicant for committing the offence of rape with her at about 1012 times.

Preeti has stated in her statement given to the Investigating Officer that she was living in the said Ashram for about ten years. She had gone frequently. She had moved from the Ashram and returned to the Ashram again at the time of Ram Leela festival in this year. No date and time have been mentioned regarding the offence of rape by the applicant. She did not complain anywhere regarding the alleged offence against the applicant. According to the medical report, she was found aged about 17 years. Therefore, she may be a major lady. She also did not lodge the F.I.R. against the applicant at any time regarding such allegation. No spermatozoa, alive or dead, was found. There is specific case of the applicant the case was got registered at the instance of Sameer Gupta through the Press Reporter. The applicant had already moved an application against the said Sameer Gupta at the concerned police station on 30112006. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant. It is worthwhile to mention here that such Ashram is a registered one from 1975 and into has been renewed from time to time till now. There was no complaint against the applicant during that period regarding the committing the offence of rape with any inmate of the Ashram. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that he had solemnized the marriage of other inmates Shalloo, Seeta, Geetam Urmila, Romul and Sonu in between 1997 and 2001 and given Kanyadan to all the girls as their father do. The statements of the above five victims were recorded by the Investigating Officer but above victims have not made allegation against the applicant for committing the offence of rape. They have specifically denied the factum of committing the offence of rape. However, one victim Preeti made allegation against the applicant who used to go in the middle of the Ashram and returned at the occasion of Ram Leela festival this year. No injury was found either on her person or on her private part. Therefore, she may be a major lady. One victim Raj Kumari is a married major lady who is also living in the said Ashram. She also did not make any allegation of rape against the applicant.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the bail application of the present applicant is allowed.

11 Let applicant Swami Bal Nath, involved in Case Crime No. 988 of 2006, under Sections 354/376(2)C/ 504, IPC, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.