SAINT SHRI ASHARAM BAPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 122/2013, P.S. Mahila Thana (West) Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 342, 376, 354A, 506, 509/34 of the IPC, Sections 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012. The matter was taken up for hearing on 16.09.2013. At the outset, the learned Additional Advocate General sought adjournment on the ground that the case-diary was not available. However, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Ram Jethmalani, was allowed to commence his arguments. The arguments were heard at length and the matter was adjourned to 18.09.2013 as requested by the State to enable them to produce the case-diary, on which date, the learned counsel for the State concluded his arguments. However, learned Senior Counsel requested for adjournment to enable them to file certain documents. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for 01.10.2013. Affidavits of Shilpi, co-accused, one Udai Sangani, Sachin Singh Patel, Manju Verma, Megha Sharma, Shiva, co-accused, Geeta and Nimesh Patel and one CD has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner began his arguments by stating that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. It was contended that the petitioner was arrested on 01.09.2013. He was remanded to police custody initially for one day. He was again produced before the court on 02.09.2013. However, the police did not ask for any further custody and was remanded to judicial custody. Hence, he is not wanted any more. The petitioner is devoted to religious pursuits. He has got 400 ashrams all over India and 40 of these ashrams runs schools both for girls and boys. He has ashrams at various places. He is not likely to run away or abscond or interfere in any manner whatsoever with the investigation. Thus, he should be enlarged on bail. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 1 SCC 40 to contend that every man is deemed to be innocent until dully tried or duly found guilty and that refusal of bail is restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A rough plan of Manai Ashram was placed on record to show that the mother of the girl was sitting close by during the time the girl was stated to in the room marked as Baapu Ji Room. Point A is the place where three sevak of the ashram usually sit including the cook. Learned counsel argued that if any one cries in Bapu Ji's room, it could be heard by many persons, particularly the persons who were sitting at point A and B, and if any person cries late in the night, the sound is heard in the entire Kutiya. In the present case, no crying and shouting took place. In case, the girl had cried, the mother would have heard. Moreover, the girl left the premises along with her mother without any sign of visible molestation or any discomfort having been faced by her. No one can believe or should believe that anything as alleged could have happened. She left the place looking cheerful. The mother and the daughter returned back absolutely normal.