There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 16th February 2020 

Swami Chinmayanand Alias Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 44814 of 2019)

Facts of the case:

1. The accused applicant Chinmayanand, Ex-Member of Parliament who once also adorned the post of Minister for internal affairs in the Government of India is suffering incarceration in jail since 20th August, 2019 in connection with Case Crime No. 0445 of 2019, P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur. The FIR of the case was initially registered by Harish Chandra Sharma, father of the alleged victim, Miss “A”, on 27.08.2019 under sections 364 and 506 IPC at P.S. Kowali, District Shahjahanpur naming the applicant Swami Chinmayanand, Rector of SS Law College, Shahjahanpur as well as certain other persons.
2. In the FIR, lodged by Harish Chandra Sharma, father of the alleged victim, the complainant has admitted that his daughter was persuing her LL.M. Education from SS Law College, Shahjahanpur and she was residing in the hostel of the aforesaid College. He alleged therein that since 23.08.2019, the mobile telephone of the victim was switched off and through the facebook account of (Miss “A”-daughter of Harish Chand) saw certain videos and pictures uploaded by the daughter. For the first time, came to know that her daughter and some other girls were being subjected to sexual misadventures by the accused applicant and they are being extended threats for their lives by his hired goons. 
3. During the pendency of the present bail application, another FIR was lodged and the copy of the same was presented before the Supreme Court. Which was lodged by Om Singh, Advocate on 25/08/2019 bearing CC no. 442 of 2019 under sections 387, 507 IPC and 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 against unknown holder of mobile No. 8604207465 with the allegation on the holder of above mobile, that the applicant (herein accused) received a call on his mobile no. 9415326300 from the aforesaid phone (No. 8604207465) demanding ransom of Rs. Five Crore and threatening him of defamation in society by making certain nude videos and pictures of the accused, viral in the social network, if the aforesaid ransom demand remains unfulfilled.
4. father of Miss “A”- Harish Chanda lodged CC No. 445 of 2019 on 27.08.2019 in FIR, enrolling applicant as accused and slapping all sort of malicious allegations upon him to reduce his high reputation into ashes. To build up mountain of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complainant of the aforesaid FIR, even has diced his daughter Miss “A” to win the dirty game for the sake of monetary and material gains.
5. After lodging FIR No. 0442 of 2019 against the holder of mobile phone number 8604207465, the police investigated the matter by hotly pursued accused, who were at run, who demanded the ransom amount from the applicant. This fact was also much tossed in the print and in the electronic media and the Hon’ble Apex Court took suo-moto cognizance of both the matters in re: Missing of an LL.M student at Swami Shukhdevana Law College (SS Law College)^[1] from Shahjahanpur under section PIL-W on the new papers report as well as on online new portals stating therein that an LL.M student Miss “A” of the aforesaid College is missing from 24.08.2019, wherein the missing girl levelled certain allegations on the persons running the institutions in SS Law College. 

Judgment:

1. Before adjudicating the bail application, the Court is conscious about the “word of caution” provided by Hon’ble the Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Shri P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation^[2]decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of giving any finding on the merits, while deciding the Bail Application. 
2. Supreme Court observed that, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.
3. The Court has observed that, however, it does not mean that, bail should be granted in every case liberally rather while adjudicating any bail application, the Court must consider authentic evidence collected during investigation, available on record with humanity and compassion and if it thinks that there are possibilities of granting bail to an accused, the conditions thereof should not be so strict that it turns to be incapable to be complied with and thus making the bail order illusionary.
4. Court was aware of the fact that many times, the learned trial courts sway away be the observations of the Apex Court while adjudicating the bail orders. It is, therefore, earnestly directed that no observation of this Court in passing this order shall effect either ways by the trial court during trial. The trial court would apply its own judicial discretion and accused while adjudicating the trial of the instant case.

Therefore, Supreme Court come to a conclusion that, let the applicant-Swami Chinmayanand alias Krishna Pal Singh, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 0445 of 2019, under Sectrions 376-C, 354-D, 342 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur on condition that, the applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. in case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.  

^[1] Writ (Criminal) No. 2 of 2019

^[2] {Criminal Appeal No. 1603 of 2019 [arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9269 of 2019] along with Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2019 [arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9445 of 2019]}