Top Stories

SC Agrees To Hear Victim's Plea Against Allahabad HC Order Granting Bail to Chinmayanand On Monday

20 Feb 2020 6:33 AM GMT
SC Agrees To Hear Victim
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to list urgently the challenge to Allahabad High Court's grant of bail to former Union Minister and BJP leader Chinmayanand in a case of sexual abuse of a law student.

Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves mentioned the matter before Chief Justice S. A. Bobde, citing the apprehension of threat to the victim's life. The CJ agreed to hear the plea on Monday.

In the order granting bail on February 3, the Allahabad High Court has made certain unusual observations which have the potential to pre-judge the criminal trial in the sexual exploitation case against him.

Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, who passed the bail order, said that "both used each other". 

The judge made observations to the effect that the family members of the law student, who raised the complaint, were being benefited out of the accused Chinmayanand during the period of alleged exploitation.

It was further mentioned that the student had not made any complaint or "whisper" to her family members against the accused. 

From this, the Court drew a "conclusion" that the case was a matter of mutual benefit (quid pro quo) and that the same was a result of conspiracy hatched with the "greed" to extract more.

In paragraph 31 of the order, it is stated :

"it is also noteworthy there are material on record where the family members of Miss "A" were being benefited out of the solipsistic behavior of the accused applicant. It is also noticeable that there is also nothing on record that during the period of the alleged atrocities committed upon Miss "A" she made any complaint or even any whisper to her family members against the accused applicant, therefore, at this juncture, this Court draws its conclusion that it was a complete matter of quid pro quo but over a span of time the greed for extracting "more", she along with her accomplices seems to have advanced for hatching a conspiracy against the applicant and tried to black mail him for ransom, through the obscene video clips recorded by herself".

Next Story