The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by a law student challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to rape accused former Union Minister Chinmayanand in a rape case.

A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha observed that there was no reason to interfere with the order.

The Allahabad High Court’s Justice Rahul Chaturvedi had granted bail to Chinmayanand on February 3.

The bench has also sought response from Uttar Pradesh government on the separate plea by the student seeking transfer of the case to a Delhi Court from Uttar Pradesh on the ground that there is a threat to the victim’s life.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appearing for the law student while countering the observation of the High Court that it was a quid pro quo case said, “The videos of the student bathing were filmed and used by Chinmayanand to sexually exploit the law student.”

Gonsalves further alleged that there was no mention of these videos in the bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court. “The High Court ignored the case of the student that she was under constant threat and duress that led her to submit to Chinmayanand,” Gonsalves said.

Gonsalves submitted that the Uttar Pradesh police have not invoked Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in the charge sheet, instead, they booked Chinmayanand under Section 376C of Indian Penal Code which pertains to sexual offences not amounting to rape.

Advocate Sidharth Luthra,  appearing for Chinmayanand, responded that the videos were mentioned in the chargesheet and it was the law student who recorded videos of Chinmayanand with the intention to blackmail him.

However, Gonsalves interjected and said, “The student was forced to record a counter-video to protect herself from further exploitation.”

The bench observed that the security provided to the law student by virtue of High Court’s order is equivalent to that of a High Court judge.

The bench also observed that the student can approach the Magistrate with an appropriate application for either cancellation of the bail or protection if she faces any attack by Chinmayanand during the investigation.

Chinmayanand is accused of sexually abusing a student of the Shahjahanpur law college, an institution funded by a trust run by him.

The expelled BJP leader was arrested on September 20 last year under section 376-C of the IPC, a charge short of rape.

The Supreme Court intervened after the 23-year-old student went missing for a few days in August last year after posting a video clip on social media, alleging sexual abuse.

In another case, the victim was charged with trying to extort money from Chinmayanand. The high court granted her bail on December 4, 2019.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday  brought the curtains down on its suo petition in the Shahjahanpur case , saying that if the girl has to anything more to say in future, she must tell everything to the Special Investigating Team (SIT).

“We don’t want to meet anyone anymore,”  the court said today. Two days back, the apex court  had ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to constitute a SIT headed by a police officer of the Inspector General rank to probe the charges levelled against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Chinmayanand. The court said that the probe will be monitored by the Allahabad High Court. As per the request of her father, the girl and her brother will get admissions in law courses in two different colleges under the aegis of the Bareilly University, the court said.

The court said today that suo motu note was taken only since the girl was missing. “Now that she has been traced, we don’t intend to do much. State has also offered to help transfer of their college for continued studies. We don’t want to expand the scope the this petition now.”

The girl who accused Chinmayanand of sexual harassment was produced before the court after she was traced in Rajasthan on Friday (30 August). The girl told the court that she had fled Shahjahanpur with her three college mates “in order to protect herself”. After the girl went missing, her father lodged a police complaint of kidnapping and criminal intimidation against Chinmayanand. A day prior, on 23 August, the 23-year-old law student had posted a video on social media alleging exploitation by powerful people on the management board of her college, albeit she didn’t name anyone specifically. Her parents have been granted police protection.

The court said that the parents of the girl had expressed concerns over her safety and asked the Additional Solicitor General to check whether the girl and her brother, both in the first year of the same college, can be admitted to another college under Bareilly University.

–India Legal Bureau