The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the Allahabad High Court order granting bail to former Union minister Swami Chinmayanand in a sexual exploitation case lodged by a law student.
A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha said the reason given by the high court in its February 3 order granting bail to Chinmayanand "does not warrant any interference".
The apex court agreed however to hear a separate plea filed by the woman and her father seeking transfer of trial in the case from Uttar Pradesh to a court in Delhi.
The bench, which refused to stay the proceedings before a trial court in Uttar Pradesh, issued notices to the state, Chinmayanand and others on the transfer petition and directed them to file their responses within four weeks.
The high court had granted bail to Chinmayanand who was arrested in a case of sexual exploitation of the woman studying law at a college run by his trust at Shahjahanpur in Uttar Pradesh. He has denied the allegations.
While rejecting the appeal challenging the bail granted to Chinmayanand, the top court observed that high court had imposed several conditions on the accused while granting him the relief.
Also Read
"We understand and appreciate your anxiety but pursuant to the order of this court, the high court is monitoring the investigation. Security has been provided to the woman and her family members in a substantial manner," the bench told senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was representing the petitioners.
"When charge sheet has already been filed, the law will take its course," the bench told Gonsalves, who argued that life of the woman and her family members is "in danger".
"Our life is in danger due to this person (Chinmayanand)," Gonsalves said and referred to the Unnao rape case involving former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in which the victim and her relatives had sustained grievous injuries in a road accident.
"See what kind of protection has been provided to the woman and her family. It is not ordinary," the bench said, adding, "This security is something which a high court judge gets".
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Chinmayanand, opposed the plea and said that petitioners have "suppressed material facts" from the court.
While narrating the sequence of events, Gonsalves said that charge sheet has been filed for offence under section 376-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which says that the offence is not amounting to rape.
"How can it be not amounting to rape," the bench asked.
To this, Gonsalves read out the provision and said it specifically says "not amounting to the offence of rape".
"It (charge) may be altered at the time of framing of charges," the bench observed and added that conclusion in the charge sheet deals with "whole things including the allegations" levelled by the woman.
Gonsalves argued that there were two objectionable videos which were basis of "blackmailing" the woman but the same were not mentioned in the charge sheet.
Luthra countered this submission and said videos have been annexed with the charge sheet.
"It is unfortunate that they (petitioners) are not making the entire statement," he said, adding, "They must come to the court with clean hands".
Luthra said the woman had got admission in the college in July 2018 and she got employment there in November 2018. He said that the woman's mother also got job there in May last year.
Gonsalves alleged that the woman was assaulted by special investigation team (SIT) of Uttar Pradesh Police, which was formed on the directions of the apex court.
"That has nothing to do with bail. It is one thing to say that police assaulted me but it is another thing to bring it to the notice of the concerned magistrate," the bench said.
The bench told Gonsalves about some video allegedly recorded by the woman and asked, "is this a normal conduct?".
To this, Gonsalves said it was "normal" as she took "counter video" since she was being blackmailed on the basis of two objectionable videos.
In its February 3 order granting bail to Chinmayanand, the high court had noted, "Both 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."
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content