Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kasushal Thakur @ Hanuman Lalbahadur ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2014

Author: A.J.Desai

Bench: A.J.Desai

       R/CR.MA/8466/2014                                                                                                                            ORDER



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
    CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 8466 of 2014

=============================================
      KASUSHAL THAKUR @ HANUMAN LALBAHADUR VIVEKANAND 
                     THAKUR....Applicant(s)
                            Versus
              THE STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR, N.D.NANAVATY, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE for MS TEJAL A VASHI, ADVOCATE for the 
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

                    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
 
                                                           Date : 17/07/2014
 
                                                                 ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 439 of the  Code   of   the   Criminal   Procedure,   the   applicant   has   prayed   to  release   him   on   regular   bail   during   pendency   of   the   trial  in  connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R. No. I ­ 31 of 2013 with  Jahangirpur   Police   Station,   District   Surat  for   the   offences  punishable under sections 376(2)(k)(f)377354357342346323143147148149506(2) and 120(B) of the IPC.

2. Brief facts arise from the record are as under:

2.1. That the prosecutrix has lodged FIR on 06.10.2013 against one  Narayan   @   Narayan   Sai,   son   of   Godman   Asaram   Bapu,   the  present applicant, other accused namely Ganga and Jamna, who  are   also   devotees   of   accused   No.   1­   Narayan   Sai   and   other  persons,  who   may   be   found  for   responsible   for   committing   the  said offence.  It is alleged by the prosecutrix that in the Month of  December,   2001,  she  visited   the   Ashram   at   Jahangirpur,  Surat,  which belongs to one Asaram Bapu, father of original accused No.  Page  1 of  8 R/CR.MA/8466/2014                                                                                                                            ORDER 1 - Narayan Sai, where some  shibirs were arranged. It is alleged  in   the   FIR   that   the   prosecutrix   along   with   her   parents   was  standing   in  a  queue   for  darshan  of   Naranyan   Sai   and   Asaram  Bapu. Narayan Sai handed over some  prasad  in the hand of the  prosecutrix   and   pressed   her   hand   and   asked   for   to   visit   the  Ashram situated at Meghnagar, Madhya Pradesh. The prosecutrix  visited   the   said   place   along   with   other   girls   for   few   days.   It   is  further alleged that most of the girls were asked to leave the place  and the  prosecutrix along with  other  seven  girls were  asked  to  stay further since there was plan of construction of the Ashram. 

She stayed for three months at Meghnagar. It is alleged that when  she was at Meghnagar, the devotees of Narayan Sai namely Ganga  and Jamna visited the ashram and asked her to talk with Narayan  Said on phone and she talked on phone with Narayan Sai.

2.2. In the next year, around Holi festival, she visited Bihar and stayed  there for about 1½ months. It is further alleged that said Narayan  Sai called her in kutiya (a hut) and molested her, however, she  left the said hut, but did not inform to anybody about the incident.

2.3. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and other girls were stayed in Jaynagar  for   two   days,   and   thereafter,   for   two   days   in   Kathmandu.   By  Kathmandu   to   Janakpuri   train,   she   returned   to   Nala   Sopara,  Maharashtra   and   after   attending   the   shibir   at   Nala   Sopara,  Maharashtra,  she returned to her home at Surat. She received a  call   from   Narayan   Sai   and   was   asked   to   attend   the   shibir   in  Jahangirpur, Surat and was also asked to talk with the devotee  namely   Hanuman,   who   is   present   applicant   in   the   application.  After   reaching   at   ashram,   she   called   from   S.T.D.   P.C.O   to   the  present applicant on his mobile that he had reached at ashram.

Page  2 of  8

R/CR.MA/8466/2014                                                                                                                            ORDER 2.4. Thereafter,  after  completion   of  satsang,  when  she   was  standing  near  a  tree   along   with   other   girls,   at   that   time,   the   present  applicant called her, and thereafter, she followed him and went  into back side of the ashram and went near Narayan Sai's kutiya.  When she entered in the kutiya, she found that Narayan Sai was  sitting   on   the   chair   and   she   was   asked   to   sit   on   the   floor   and  thereafter,  Narayan   Sai  committed  the   offence  registered   under  sections 376 and 377 of the Code.  It is the case of the prosecutrix  that   since   Narayan   Sai   and   his   father   Asaram   Bapu,   who   are  impersonated as Godman and are head strong persons, she did  not   inform   about   the   incident   to   anybody,   however,   when   she  came to know that  an  offence against said Asaram Bapu, who is  father of Narayan Sai, lodged at Jodhpur, she dared to file FIR  against Narayan Sai, and therefore, she filed   present FIR in the  Month of October, 2013. 

2.5. Pursuant to FIR lodged against the main accused namely Narayan  Sai, along with the present applicant arrested by the Investigating  Agency   on   04.12.2013  from  Punjab.  After  completion   of  investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted charge sheet on  01.03.2014. 

2.6. The present applicant filed application for releasing him on bail  before the  Sessions  Court,  which  has  been  rejected. Hence,  the  present application.

3. In response to the notice issued, the Investigating Agency has filed  affidavit­in­reply.

4. Mr.N.D.Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate  assisted by Ms. Tejal  Vashi,   learned   advocate  appearing   on   behalf   of   the   present  Page  3 of  8 R/CR.MA/8466/2014                                                                                                                            ORDER applicant has vehemently submitted that the Investigating Agency  has failed to establish any offences as alleged against the present  applicant. He would further submit that the Investigating Agency  has  failed  to   establish,  even   prima   facie,  the   charge   of   Section  120(B)  of the IPC  levelled against him apart from other serious  offences. He would further submit that there is delay of more than  10 years in lodging FIR, which creates doubts about the intention  of the prosecutrix.

5. By   taking   me   through   further   statement   of   the   prosecutrix,   he  would further submit that she was standing near a tree with other  girls (as stated in FIR), at that time, the present applicant called  her, and therefore, she informed the other girls that she had some  work, and therefore, she is going to home. She further stated that  when she reached near the tree adjacent to the kutiya, the present  applicant left the place. The kutiya was opened and she entered in  the   kutiya,   where   she   found   that   the   present   Narayan   Sai   was  sitting   on   the   chair.   The   only   role   attributed   to   the   present  applicant   is   taking   the   prosecutrix   upto   a   particular   place   i.e.  kutiya and thereafter, she herself entered into kutiya. He would  further submit that except the statement of the prosecutrix and  the role attributed to the present applicant, there is no evidence  against the present applicant. He would further submit that some  of the witnesses have stated that the present applicant along with  other accused persons namely Ramesh Malhotra, Monica Agrawal,  Ganga and Jamna were  used to  remain present  in all  the shibirs  and were helping Narayan Sai for selecting the girls for his ill­ wish. He would further submit that Ramesh Malhotra, Ganga and  Jamana have been enlarged on regular bail and other lady Monica  Agrawal, who has played similar role in the offence, has also been  Page  4 of  8 R/CR.MA/8466/2014                                                                                                                            ORDER enlarged on  anticipatory  bail. He would further submit that the  role attributed to the present applicant and one Ramesh Malhotra,  who has also played similar role in nature, has been enlarged on  bail by the Trial Court.  However, the Trial Court   has refused to  release   the  present   applicant.   Therefore,   the   present   applicant  may be released on bail. He would further submit that out of 36  accused, 34 accused have been enlarged on bail except the main  accused i.e. Narayan Sai and present applicant.

6. On   the   other   hand,   Mr.R.C.Kodekar,   learned   APP   opposed   this  application   and   would   submit   that   the   present   applicant   is  conspirator with the main accused and had hatched the conspiracy  for   the   serious   offences  of   under   section   376   and   377   etc.   He  would further submit that the present applicant has played active  role by taking the prosecutrix upto kutiya, wherein present serious  offence of section 376 is taken place.   

7. Learned   APP   drove   the   attention   of   this   Court   towards   the  statement of one Avani @ Priti, who has categorically stated that  the present applicant was the person, who was selecting the girls  for the main accused.

He would further submit that subsequent to lodging of FIR, other  devotees have attacked those persons, who have tried to support  the   prosecutrix   and   against   those   persons,   the  offences   are  registered. He would further submit that if the present applicant is  enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the evidence or threaten the  witnesses.

8. I have heard learned advocate for the respective parties. Perused  the papers of investigation. I have also gone through the FIR as  Page  5 of  8 R/CR.MA/8466/2014                                                                                                                            ORDER well   as  several  further   statements  of   the   prosecutrix   and  statements   of   Devendra  Prajapati,   Avani   @   Priti  and  Chandan.  Prima facie, it appears that the present applicant is also devotee of  the Asaram Bapu, who is used to accompanying the main accused.  However, the role of the present applicant in the present case is  only   that   he   has   led   the   prosecutrix  upto  particular   place   i.e.  kutiya.  It is an undisputed fact that there is no other role played  by him. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, would be only of  an   abettor.   It   is   also   true   that   no   other   witnesses   have   come  forward before the investigating agency that the present applicant  had played similar role in some other incidents. Other witnesses  have made general allegations, which are of similar nature, made  against   Ramesh   Malhotra,   Monica   Agrawal,   Ganga   and   Jamna,  who have been already enlarged on bail.

It is also pertinent to note that the warrant under Section 70 of  the   Code   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   issued   by   the   learned  Magistrate against the present applicant has been quashed and set  aside by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 

It is also pertinent to note that with regard to subsequent offences  registered   against   other   devotees,   they   have   been   enlarged   on  bail.

9. Time   and   again,   as   advised   by   the   Hon'ble   Apex   Court,   detail  scrutiny of the evidence is not required at this stage and as well as  to be dealt with the same in detail, which may come in the way at  the time of trial. 

10. Considering the offence as alleged in the FIR and also considering  the nature of allegations made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that  Page  6 of  8 R/CR.MA/8466/2014                                                                                                                            ORDER this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant  on   bail.   Hence,   the   application   is   allowed   and   the   applicant   is  ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I ­ 31  of   2013   with   Jahangirpur   Police   Station,   District   Surat  on  executing a bond of  Rs.50,000/­ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)  with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the  trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b]  not   act   in   a   manner   injuries   to   the   interest   of   the  prosecution;

[c]  surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d]  not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of  the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e]  shall not visit any ashram belongs to Narayan Sai or Asaram  Bapu situated at in any cities or states.

[f] mark   presence   at   the   concerned   police   station   on  every  Monday   for   a   period   of   one   year  and   thereafter   on  alternate Monday till the trial is over;

[g]  furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also  to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall  not change the residence without prior permission of this  Court;

11.  The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required  in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach  of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge  concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action  in  the  matter. Bail  bond to be  executed before the  lower  court  having   jurisdiction   to   try   the   case.   It   will   be   open   for   the  concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above  conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the trial court shall  Page  7 of  8 R/CR.MA/8466/2014                                                                                                                            ORDER not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua  the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the  applicant on bail.

12.  Rule   made   absolute   to   the   aforesaid   extent.   Direct   service   is  permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.)  *Kazi...

Page  8 of  8