Rajasahebshri Rajtilak Sagarji vs State Of Gujarat

Gita Gopi , J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent - State.

This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the FIR No.11209020201116 of 2020 registered with Idar Police Station, District Sabarkantha for offences punishable under sections 376(1), 295 and 506(2) of IPC.

Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that all the 'Jain Muni', who were staying in the 'Jain Upashray', Idar have been falsely maligned and aspersions are casted against them. The legal notice dated 15.05.2020, was issued by 'Acharya Kalyan Sagarsuri Maharaj' against the trustees. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the present applicant and his 'Guru' under Section 354 of the IPC on 22.06.2020, wherein bail came to be granted by the concerned Court and therefore, the present complaint on 25.08.2020 has been filed to ensure that the present applicant further remains in jail. He submitted that the alleged incident is of 2013 and the incident has been specified as of 22.04.2013, the same being the birthday of the complainant and it is alleged that the victim has gone to meet the present complainant to take blessing and on that day the offence alleged to have been committed. The offence is registered under Section 376 of the IPC. Mr. Patel, submitted that delay in filing the complaint itself shows that the same is concocted and the same is filed with an ulterior motive. The present applicant had taken 'Diksha', 42 years prior and no such complaint or allegation has been made against him. It is only after the legal notice by 'Acharya Kalyan Sagarsuri, such false complaints came to be filed. It was, therefore, prayed that the present application may be allowed and the applicant herein may be released on regular bail.

Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Apurva Dave, learned advocate, submitted that the present complainant after gathering courage has filed complaint. He submitted that no women would like to put her name at stake. She has explained the delay. Mr. Dave submitted that she was under fear of infamy and threat, therefore, she could not file the complaint. It was, therefore, prayed that as the same being serious offence, no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.

Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. Copy of the legal notice dated 15.05.2020 is on record, given in the daily newspaper, Acharya Kalyan Sagarsuri, who has stated himself to be from 'Anand Sagarsuri Samudai', alleged the trustees of misusing the property, harassing and blackmailing them. As per the record, thereafter, the complaint under Section 354 of the IPC was filed wherein the applicant and co-accused were granted bail.

It is stated that, it was only after the information received through the newspapers and the media, the complainant gathered courage to lodge the complaint. The victim in the year 2013, joined Sankhleshwar Jain Sang from Surendranagar and had stayed at different places for the period of eight days and from Surendranagar she had come to Vana Village, where she for the first time met the present applicant to hear his lectures and thereafter had returned to Surendranagar. In the same year of 2013, the complainant had come for 'Ambelini Oli' at Idar, during that occasion one by one people were allowed to go to the applicant in isolated room for 'Darshan' and she, on her birthday i.e on 22.04.2013, has also gone to take blessings of the applicant accused, who inquired about her matrimonial status and her parents. She alleged that thereafter the applicant committed the act of rape against her wish and consent.

There are allegations from the side of the Maharaj against the trustees. The sequence of the incident shows that the complaint under section 354 of the IPC was filed and the complainant states that it was only after getting to know of registration of rape case against the applicant accused, she mustered courage to file complaint. There are allegations and counter allegations from both the sides. Taking the fact into consideration of in-ordinate delay in filing the complaint and the fact of property issues of the trust, authenticity and veracity of the complaint could be tested during the trial, the complainant being aged about 49 years, she would be in a position to protect herself and would be also in a position to take police protection, if there are any adverse situation against her, therefore, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR No.11209020201116 of 2020 registered with Idar Police Station, District Sabarkantha on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one 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 injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

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

[d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned trial court;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the concerned trial court;

[f] not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer of tamper with the evidence;

The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, 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.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.