SWAMI BAL NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) THE first informant, who is a Press Reporter, made a written complaint to the S. H. O. Sihani Gate, Gaziabad on 30-11-2006. 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 5-6 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) "

(3.) 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 50-60 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 30-11-2006 against one Sameer Gupta, which was not registered. Hence an F. I. R. was lodged on 1-12-2006 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 6-11-2006, 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 2-12-2006 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.