Babita Singh (Secretary). iv. Smt. Aanchal Singh (Deputy Secretary v. Smt. Swati Singh (Treasurer). vi. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh (Member). Vii. Mr. Sanja

5-The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are as under :-

5.1-The applicant is a trustee of the trust ‘Aadhyatmik Aashram’ at Varanasi established by him in the year 2017 prior to the alleged incident and is having command over spiritual yoga, therefore, many people are attached to the applicant to learn yoga. The said trust was registered on

25.05.2017 in the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Varanasi. The amended trust deed was also registered on 08.08.2019, in which following 14 persons are members, holding different posts in trust, which are as under :- i. Chandra Bhooshan Singh @ Prabhuji (applicant / founder and president of trustee). ii. Smt. Mani Singh (wife of the applicant / Vice President). 3 of 21 iii. Smt. Babita Singh (Secretary). iv. Smt. Aanchal Singh (Deputy Secretary / complainant). v. Smt. Swati Singh (Treasurer). vi. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh (Member). Vii. Mr. Sanjay Singh (Member). viii. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh (Member). ix. Mr. Shailesh Singh (Member). x. Smt. Priya Singh (Member). xi. Smt. Vidhya Singh (Member). xii. Mr. Shuman Singh (Member). xiii. Mr. Vikas (Member/husband of the complainant). xiv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh (Member). The copy of the registered deed dated 08.08.2019 has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application.

5.2-Mr. Sanjay Singh, whose name has find place at serial no. vii of the trust deed dated 08.08.2019 was looking after the Finance and Administration of the said trust has misappropriated the funds of the trust behind the back of the applicant, for which he was scolded by the applicant and ousted from the said trust. Thereafter, Sanjay Singh and his associates have threatened the applicant for dire consequences, after which applicant in anticipation of his false implication, sent his complaints dated 21.10.2023, 4 of 21

14.03.2024 and 22.07.2024 to the Superintendent of Police (Commissioner of Police), Varanasi by speed-post for hatching a criminal conspiracy by Sanjay Singh, Babita Singh, Aanchal Singh (victim), Sudhir Kumar Singh, Swati Singh and their associates to falsely implicate the applicant, but no action has been taken by the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi in the matter.

5.3-On account of said financial dispute of trust, Sanjay Singh (Member of the trust), who is master mind of this case, in order to settle his personal score, started hatching a conspiracy to falsely implicate the applicant and to lower down his reputation in the society. In this regard, it is pointed out that Sanjay Singh got a first information report lodged on

12.04.2023 through Swati Singh wife of Deepak Kumar, who are Treasurer and Member of the trust respectively, which was registered at Case Crime No. 0159 of 2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 354, 506, 504, 323, 147, 406 and 420 I.P.C. at Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi against Chandra Bhooshan Singh (applicant), Mitesh Khotari and 8-10 disciples. Then applicant preferred a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9663 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2023 of this Court granting protection to the applicant in accordance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

5.4-Thereafter, Mr. Sanjay Singh (Member of the trust) got another first information report lodged through his wife Smt. 5 of 21 Babita Singh (Secretary of the trust) against the applicant- Chandra Bhooshan Singh, Nand Lal and Aalisha, which was registered at Case Crime No. 0188 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 376 I.P.C. at Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi (Commissionerate Varanasi), in which also during investigation, applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.08.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9689 of 2023 and after submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., applicant has again preferred Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4907 of 2024, in which also interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the applicant vide order dated 08.07.2024 which was extended from time to time and the matter is still pending.

5.5-After granting above anticipatory bails to the applicant, the aforesaid rival group of the applicant taking the concerned Police Officers in confidence, made a plan to first arrest the applicant and then lodged F.I.R. and in order to execute the said plan the police personnel, who were in collusion with rival group of the applicant, came at the house of the applicant on 19.09.2024 at 10:30 pm and arrested him, whereas at that time, no F.I.R. was in-existence. With regard to said illegal arrest of the applicant, it is further submitted that a call was also made on 19.09.2024 at 22:44:23 to mobile police by dialling helpline no. 112 from mobile no. 8471061846 of Nitesh Kothari. In order to give strength to his his submission, learned counsel for applicant also produced a copy of an information received under the right of information Act, which is extracted herein below:- 6 of 21 7 of 21

5.6-Apart from the aforesaid fact, to establish the factum of illegal arrest of the applicant by police personnel in the night of 19.09.2024 from his house as well as F.I.R. is anti-dated and anti-timed, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon some CCTV footage / photographs of residential Society, in which applicant’s house is situated, which have been brought on record as annexure nos. 1 and 2 of rejoinder affidavit dated 07.11.2024. Much emphasis has been given by contending that despite best effort made from 8 of 21 the side of the applicant, the investigating officer did not take these important evidence and in order to save the skin of police personnel, who were involved in illegal arrest of the applicant, has neither made any investigation in this regard nor made the same as part of case diary.

5.7-After illegal arrest of the applicant on 19.09.2024 at 10:30 pm, a false first information report of the alleged victim Aanchal Singh was registered on 20.09.2024 at 01:20 AM at Case Crime No. 0124 of 2024 for the alleged offence under Section 328, 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi after two years of the alleged offence of rape, which according to the complainant took place in the month of August, 2022.

5.8-At this stage, much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of financial dispute of trust.

5.9- There is no plausible explanation of inordinate delay of more than two years in getting the F.I.R. lodged.

5.10- It is also pointed out that the complainant neither in F.I.R. nor in her statement recorded during investigation has disclosed the specific date and time of alleged incident of rape.

5.11- Complainant has also made allegation that under the threat, applicant committed rape on her several times, but for the alleged repeated act of rape also, she neither in the F.I.R. nor during the investigation, disclosed the specific date, time and place of alleged incident of rape. Even she has not 9 of 21 disclosed that on which date she told everything to her husband.

5.12- Referring the F.I.R. it has also argued that as per own averment of the victim that in August, 2022 victim along with her husband started living secretly at different places, hence, the allegation of the victim that after August, 2022 also applicant committed rape on her is false on the face of record itself. Victim also did not disclose her address, where she was living with her husband after August 2022. The investigating officer also did not take pain to investigate the said allegation of the complainant.

5.13-Referring the medical examination report of the victim, it is also submitted that the victim was medically examined on

20.09.2024 at 12:45 PM and her medico legal report was prepared by Dr. Sonal Tripathi, District Women Hospital, Varanasi, wherein in the column of description, it is mentioned NAD “not prepared because case is old according to the victim is of August 2022” and as such, except the false allegation of the victim in the F.I.R and in her statement, recorded during investigation, there is no corroborative material against the applicant in support of the allegation of complainant.

5.14- So far as the fact as stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. that the applicant had managed a room in Aashram is concerned, it is submitted that said fact is also false and against the evidence on record. Referring the rent agreement between Sanjay Singh and Vikas Kumar (husband of the victim) dated 06.08.2019 which has been brought on record 10 of 21 as Annexure No. RA-II to the rejoinder affidavit dated

12.12.2024, it is pointed out that in fact complainant was tenant of Sanjay Singh with effect from 01.07.2019 and in the said rent agreement dated 06.08.2019, complainant-Aanchal Singh is also one of the witness.

5.15-It is also argued that all the complainants against the applicant are related to each other. In this regard, it is submitted that Smt. Swati Singh, who has lodged F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 0159 of 2023 against the applicant is treasurer of the trust and is bhabhi of the complainant- Aanchal Singh (Deputy Secretary of the trust) and Smt. Babita Singh (Secretary of the trust) who lodged the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 188 of 2023 at Police Station Shivpur District Varanasi is wife of Mr. Sanjay Singh (Member of the trust) and sister-in-law of the complainant of this case.

5.16-A joint family photograph of Smt. Babita Singh, Smt. Swati Singh and complainant-Anchal Singh and photograph of Vikas Singh (husband of complaint) with Brijesh Singh, Shailesh Singh, Sudhir Kumar Singh (Sub-Inspector) and Sanjay Singh as well as a joint photograph of Sanjay Singh, Nishant Singh (son of Sanjay Singh), Brijesh Singh, Shailesh Singh (nephew of Sanjay Singh) and Vikas Kumar (husband of the complainant) have also been brought on record as annexure no. RA-1 with the rejoinder affidavit dated

12.12.2024.

5.17- Referring the conduct of the rival Group, it is submitted that during the pendency of this bail application, the aforesaid rival group in order to cause irreparable loss and 11 of 21 injury to the applicant also got a first information report lodged through Sushma Singh (member of trust) wife of Sudhir Kumar Singh on 25.10.2024 registered at Case Crime No. 0501 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 328, 354 and 506 I.P.C. against the applicant and unknown deciples, in which applicant has been granted bail vide order dated

16.11.2024 of the trial court.

5.18- It is further submitted that Sanjay Singh through his tenant had also got a F.I.R. lodged against the applicant, which was registered at case crime no. 305 of 2022 under Section 376(2)n I.P.C. but later on complainant filed her affidavit that she was mis-guided by Sanjay Singh and others. Now she does not want to prosecute the applicant. The investigation of the said case is still pending.

5.19- Much emphasis has been given by pointing out that one Bhawana Singh was also being compelled and pressurised to lodge F.I.R. against the applicant and she was beaten also. She made an effort to lodged F.I.R. in this regard but her F.I.R. was not lodged by the police, then she has approached the Court by filling an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide order dated 08.08.2024, thereafter F.I.R. of Bhawana Singh was registered on

04.09.2024 at case crime no.383 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 452 and 506 IPC at police station Shivpur, District Varanasi against Baba, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Babita Singh, Nishant Singh, Shivam Singh Swati Singh, Dharm Dev Singh and Arbind Kumar. The contents of F.I.R. are reproduced as under :- 12 of 21 थाना शि*वपुर, मोह्ቤा 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, धम.देव िሺसह पु्ቔ अ्ሺात ( थाना शि*वपुर, जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा, 5. हिन*ातिሺसहउᯚⓦ. शि*वम 4. हिनवासी थाना शि*वपुर, वाराणसी, पोस्ट चहहिनया जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा चन्दौ䨈尚ी 7. अयोध्या धाम का䨈尚ोनी, ्ቚाቕኌथनी के नाना) " नक䨈尚 तहरीर हिहन्दी वाहिदनी----------- न्याया䨈尚य ्ቦीमान⺘䥛 मुख्य न्यायियक मजि(cid:21)स्ट्रेट वाराणसी ्ቚा०प०सं० सन⺘䥛 भावना िሺसह पु्ቔी दीपक कुमार िሺसह हिनवाजिसनी प्䨈尚ाट नं0 सी-27 अयोध्या धाम का䨈尚ोनी थाना शि*वपुर जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी䦱䄁 ्ቚाቕኌथनी बनाम 1. बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह पु्ቔ स्व० माक.ण्डेय िሺसह हिनवासी मकान नं0 एस0एच0 5/155 सी-10, मोह्ቤा 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, थाना जि(cid:21)䨈尚ावाराणसी䦱䄁 2. शि*वपुर, बहिबतािሺसहपत्नीबाबासं(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहहिनवासी मकान नं0 एस.एच. 5/155 सी-10, थाना शि*वपुर, जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी䦱䄁 3. *ीतां*ुिሺसहउᯚⓦ. सत्यमपु्ቔगणबाबा मकान नं0 एस.एच. 5/155 सी-10, मोह्ቤा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह हिनवासी- 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, स्वाती िሺसह पु्ቔी धम.देव िሺसह पत्नी दीपक थाना शि*वपुर, कुमार िሺसह हिनवासी प्䨈尚ाट नं0 सी-27 हिनवासी गुरेरा, जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी䦱䄁 6. थाना चहहिनया, अरहिवन्द कुमार वमा. पु्ቔ अ्ሺात उ्ቈर ्ቚदे* उप हिनरी्ቌक पद पर हिनयु्ሹ䦱䄁 .... अशिभयु्ሹगण ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ अन्तगत. धारा 156 (3) सी०आर०पी०सी०थाना- शि*वपुरवाराणसी䦱䄁(cid:21)रिरयेसनर्ቌकहिपतादीपककुमार िሺसह पु्ቔ शि*व*ंकर िሺसह हिनवासी म0नं0-एस.एस. 5/155 सी-10, मोह्ቤा जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी䦱䄁 ्ቚाቕኌथनी हिनम्न हिनवेदन करती है- 1. 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, सा䨈尚 पु्ቔी यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी भावना िሺसह (cid:21)न्म यितशिथ 10.02.2008 उ቞७ 15 दीपक कुमार िሺसह (cid:21)ो हिक ᯚⓦौ(cid:21)ी है वत.मान जिसयायिचन ग्䨈尚ेशि*यर म㛋⺜ हिनयु्ሹ है वत.मान पता प्䨈尚ाट नम्बर सी-27 अयोध्या धाम का䨈尚ोनी थाना शि*वपुर, वाराणसी हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी पह䨈尚े अपने सगे ᯚⓦुᯚⓦा बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह पु्ቔ स्व० मोह्ቤा 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, माक.ण्डेय िሺसह पता मकान नं0 एस.एच. 5/155 सी-10, थाना शि*वपुर, के यहा ्ቚाቕኌथनी जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी (cid:21)ो हिक एक तांहि्ቔक बाबा है, सपरिरवारजि(cid:21)सम㛋⺜सगाछोटाभा쩶룶सुभा꼉ꙗिሺसहमम्मीस्वातीिሺसहपु्ቔीधम.देविሺसह पापाउपरो्ሹ दीपक कुमार िሺसहऔरदादा साथ म㛋⺜ रहते थे䦱䄁बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह, बहिबता िሺसह (cid:21)ो हिक बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह को पत्नी हैऔर इनके दोनो बेटे्ቅम*勡寞हिन*ांतिሺसहउᯚⓦ. शि*वम, *ीतां*ुिሺसहउᯚⓦ. सत्यमहिवगतक쩶룶महीनों सेचन््ቖभू꼉ꙗणिሺसह(्ቚभु(cid:21)ी) पु्ቔस्व०माक.ण्डेयिሺसहके पैसेकाघोटा䨈尚ाशिछपाने और पैसा ववू䨈尚 करके अपना क(cid:21). चुकाने के आ*य से झूठे आरोप 䨈尚गाने की यो(cid:21)ना बना रहे थे हिᯚⓦर आरोप भी 䨈尚गाया䦱䄁 ्ቚाቕኌथनी की मम्मी उपरो्ሹ स्वाती जिसह का तं्ቔ मं्ቔ से व*ीकरण करके बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह अपने हिगरोह म㛋⺜ *ाहिम䨈尚 कर लि䨈尚या है और उनसे चन््ቖभू꼉ꙗण िሺसह (्ቚभु(cid:21)ी) पर झूठा केस भी करवायाहै䦱䄁बाबासं(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहऔरउसकापरिरवारअपनेहिगरोहम㛋⺜*ाहिम䨈尚 करने के लि䨈尚ये हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी को चन्दभू꼉ꙗण िሺसह (्ቚभु(cid:21)ी) पर झूठे संगीन आरोप 䨈尚गाने के लि䨈尚ए दुष््ቚेरिरत कर रहे थे जि(cid:21)ससे चन्दभू꼉ꙗण िሺसह (्ቚभु(cid:21)ी) पर पोक्सो (POCSO) एक्ट 䨈尚गाया (cid:21)ा सके और उनसे पैसे वसू䨈尚े (cid:21)ा सके䦱䄁 (cid:21)ब ्ቚाቕኌथनी ने मना कर हिदया तब उपरो्ሹ बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह ओर इसके बेटे ्ቅम*勡寞 हिन*ांतिሺसहउᯚⓦ. शि*वम, *ीतां*ूिሺसहउᯚⓦ. सत्यमने्ቚाቕኌथनीको*ारीरिरकऔर मानजिसक रूप से ्ቚताशिणत करना ्ቚारम्भ हिकया (cid:21)ो हिक हिदसम्बर 2022 से वत.मान समय तक कर ही रहे है䦱䄁 उपरो्ሹ बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह और इनके दोनो बेटों ने हिम䨈尚कर ्ቚाቕኌथनी को बहुत मारा- हिपटा ्ቚाቕኌथनी के बा䨈尚 पकቑቱ कर घसीटेऔरकांटेदारचम्मच (ᯚⓦोक) से(cid:21)ानसेमारनेकीकोशि**हिकए䦱䄁्ቚाቕኌथनी कीमम्मीउपरो्ሹस्वातीिሺसहभीघटनास्थ䨈尚परउपቝኌस्थतथीवोहम्ቚाቕኌथनी की नह सुनी बቝኌ[क हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी को ही डाटा की तुम ही ग䨈尚त हो और बाबा सं(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहऔरउसके परिरवारकाहीसाथदी, (cid:21)ब्ቚाቕኌथनीइसवारदात को साव.(cid:21)हिनक करने की बात कही तब उसके भो(cid:21)न म㛋⺜ हिव꼉ꙗ ((cid:21)हर) डा䨈尚कर मारने की धमकी दी ग쩶룶䦱䄁 (cid:21)ब ्ቚाቕኌथनी ने उपरो्ሹ घटना अपने पापा उपरो्ሹ दीपक कुमार िሺसह को बताया तब उन्होंने अपने परिरवार को वत.माना पते पर स्थानातरिरत(शि*फ्ट) तब्ቚाቕኌथनीकीमम्मीनेयहांभीहम्ቚाቕኌथनी कोमारा- पीटाहिᯚⓦर्ቚाቕኌथनीकीदादीउसकीसुर्ቌाके लि䨈尚एसाथरहनेआ쩶룶तब बाबासं(cid:21)यिሺसहके कहनेपर्ቚाቕኌथनीके मम्मीके ्ቛारादादीकोमारागयाऔर दादा को हिव꼉ꙗा्ሹ खाना देने से वो बीमार हो गए और हቝኌस्पट䨈尚 आ쩶룶.सी.यू. म㛋⺜ करवाहिदया, थाना पर हिदनांक 17.10.2023 भत_ होने के बाद अपने गांव च䨈尚े गए䦱䄁 वत.मान पते पर आ (cid:21)ाने के बाद भी उपरो्ሹ बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह और उसके दोनों 䨈尚ቑቱके हिन*ात िሺसह उᯚⓦ. शि*वम, *ीतां*ु िሺसह उᯚⓦ. सत्यम ्ቚाቕኌथनी के घर म㛋⺜ राहि्ቔ म㛋⺜ घुसकर हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी कोमाराऔर्ቚाቕኌथनीके बा䨈尚पकቑቱकरसरकोमाब.䨈尚परक쩶룶बारपटकाबाबा सं(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहके कहनेपर्ቚाቕኌथनीकीमम्मी्ቛारा्ቚाቕኌथनीके पापाउपरो्ሹ दीपक कुमार िሺसह पर झूठा केस व आरोप 䨈尚गाकर कोट. मा*.䨈尚 करवाने का ्ቚयासहिकयागयाऔरपापाकोदुष््ቚेरिरतहिकयाहिकतुम(cid:21)[दीमरक्योंनह(cid:21)ाते जि(cid:21)ससे तुम्हारी पूरी प㛋⺜*न मुझे हिम䨈尚 (cid:21)ायेगी तत्प्ቐात⺘䥛 ्ቚाቕኌथनी के हिपता दीपक कुमार िሺसह आत्महत्या करने (cid:21)ा रहे थे 䨈尚ेहिकन हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी के समझाने पर हिवचारबद䨈尚े हिक बाबास(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहिሺसह्ቛाराधमकीदीगयीहिक यहिदतुम और तुम्हारे पापा हमारे हिगरोह म㛋⺜ नह आते तो हम तुम्हे और तुम्हारे पापा को (cid:21)े䨈尚करवाद㛋⺜गे䦱䄁औरहमारीपहुचबहुतउपरपुलि䨈尚सथानेऔरगुण्डे माहिᯚⓦयाओं तक है हम उंचे रसुख वा䨈尚े व्यहि्ሹ हैहमारा को쩶룶 कुछ नही कर सकता䦱䄁 2. यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी के नाना धम.देव िሺसह पु्ቔ अ्ሺात पता हिनवासी ्ቇाम गुरेरा थाना चहहिनयापोस्टचहहिनयाजि(cid:21)䨈尚ाचन्दौ䨈尚ीउ०्ቚ०्ቚाቕኌथनीके मम्मीउपरो्ሹस्वाती िሺसह और बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह के हिगरोह का साथ दे रहे है䦱䄁 और सभी अपराध को हि्ቅयाቝኌन्वत करने म㛋⺜ बराबर के हिहस्सेदार हैं䦱䄁 ये बहुत ही घृणा एवं संगीन अपराध है इनका हिगरोह है (cid:21)ो हिकसी पर झूठे आरोप 䨈尚गाकर मुकदमे म㛋⺜ ᯚⓦंसाते है और मनमानी तरीके से पैसा वसू䨈尚ने का काय. करते है䦱䄁 3. यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी ने इ䨈尚ाका, को एक ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ हिपता दीपककुमारिሺसहके माध्यमसेहिदयाऔरएकस्पीडपोस्टके माध्यमसेहिदया थाने पर ्ቚाቕኌथनी का बयान नह लि䨈尚या गया ना ही को쩶룶 काय.वाही की गयीऔर थाने से स्पीड पोस्ट के ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ को वायर䨈尚 करके ्ቚाथहिमकी द(cid:21). करने के पह䨈尚े ही हिवपयि्ቌयों को दे हिदया गया䦱䄁 ए.सी.पी. आहिᯚⓦस और महिह䨈尚ा आयोग म㛋⺜ भी्ቚाथ.नाप्ቔहिदयागयापरउसपरभीको쩶룶काय.वाहीनहहिकयागया䦱䄁4. यह हिक्ቚाቕኌथनी्ቛाराहिदयेगयेआ쩶룶.(cid:21)ी.आर.एस. सं0-20019723025596 हिदनाक 28.10.2023 के अनुसार थाना शि*वपुर के स्थानीय हिववेचक महोदय ्ቛारा काय.वाही रिरपोट. पूरी तरह से झूठा है केव䨈尚 मनगढंत तथा ्ቝामक कथनों पर आधारिरतहै, जि(cid:21)सकाउ्ሹ्ቚकरणसेको쩶룶सम्बन्धनहहै䦱䄁 5. यहहिक हिववेचक महादेव ्ቛारा रिरपोट. 䨈尚गाते समय रिरपोट. म㛋⺜ हिदखाये है हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी से बात हिकया परन्तुऐसाकुछभीनहहुआहैतथा्ቚाቕኌथनीसेहिववेचकमहोदयकाको쩶룶बात या मु䨈尚ाकात नह है䦱䄁 6. यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी के उ्ሹ ्ቚकरण के सम्बन्ध म㛋⺜ थाना शि*वपुर के स्थानीय हिववेचनायिधकारी ्ቛारा ्ቚयितवादीगण/ हिवप्ቌीगण से सम्पक. करके ᯚⓦ(cid:21)_/ वाहिदनी से को쩶룶 सम्पक. नह हुआ䦱䄁 7. यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी के उ्ሹ ्ቚकरण म㛋⺜ हिकसी भी ्ቚकार का को쩶룶 ्ቚसा*हिनक काय.वाही नह हो पा रही हैं तथा ्ቚाቕኌथनी काᯚⓦी थक हारकर माननीय न्याया䨈尚य के यहां ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ दालिख䨈尚 कर रही है लि䨈尚हा(cid:21)ा ्ቚाቕኌथनी के करवा कर उ्ሹ ्ቚ्ቅण के सम्बन्ध म㛋⺜ हिकसी स्ቌम अयिधकारी ्ቛारा सुसंगतधाराओंम㛋⺜मुकदमापं(cid:21)ीकृतहिकया(cid:21)ानाआवश्यकतथान्यायसगतहै䦱䄁 ्ቚाथ.न अतएव माननीय न्याया䨈尚य से ्ቚाथ.ना है हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी के ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ को सं्ሺान म㛋⺜䨈尚ेतेहुएस्ቌमअयिधकारी्ቛाराहिववेचनाकरसुसंगतधाराओंम㛋⺜मुकदमा पं(cid:21)ीकृतकरनेकीकृपाकर㛋⺜ताहिकन्यायहोवे䦱䄁" झूठा रिरपोट. सं䨈尚瞌漂 कर हिदया है (cid:21)बहिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी/ हिववेचना

5.20-On the strength of aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that several FIRs have been lodged against the applicant only to grab the property of the trust with an ulterior motive on the false and concocted story. In fact no such incident took place as alleged in the F.I.R. 14 of 21

5.21- Investigating officer has not conducted fair investigation, whereas proper investigation is one of the essentials of the criminal justice system and an integral facet of rule of law.

5.22- Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, it is pointed out that apart from aforesaid three criminal cases lodged against the applicant after financial dispute of trust, two cases were also lodged against the applicant being case crime no. 68 of 2010 under Sections 323,504 and 506 I.P.C. at police Station- Luxa, District Varanasi on the basis of Non Cognizable Report, in which earlier compromise took place but subsequently on account of dispute with Sanjay Singh, who had taken surety/ bail of the applicant, got the order- sheet changed and in this regard inquiry is going on by registering Misc. Case No.1749 of 2024 before the concerned Court below. A complainant case no.7135 of 2016 was also lodged against the applicant, which was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

5.23-Referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 11 SCC 648, it is argued that in the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that mere pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

5.24-Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15 of 21

20.09.2024 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. 6-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. date 20.09.2024.They next submit that the delay in lodging F.I.R. has been explained by the victim that due to fear she along with her husband were changing places to save their lives but when she came to know that other women filed case against applicant, only then she lodged F.I.R. against applicant on 20.09.2024 at 01:25 AM. Since allegation against the applicant is serious in nature, therefore he was immediately arrested by the police near V.D.A. colony, Varanasi on 20.09.2024 at 11:30AM. At the time of arrest of the applicant, five mobile phone were recovered from his possession, which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramnagar, Varanasi, which were received there on 01.10.2024. So far as stand of the applicant that he was arrested prior to lodging F.I.R. is concerned, it is argued that no such CCTV footage have been provided by the accused during investigation, hence no reliance can be placed on the same. The applicant has three residences, where in all such places he carries out his illegal activities. The applicant has formed a trust and has given various feature of trust, which shows that he was doing all kind of illegal activities and in the garb of trust, he has spoiled the life of many women. F.I.R. was lodged in mid night because victim was not ready to go to the police station even in day light due to fear of the applicant. Victim was introduced to the applicant by her 16 of 21 husband, but she was not aware about the misdeed of the applicant, later on she came to know about the character of the appicant when he committed rape on her in August 2022, hence, delay of two years is not fatal for the prosecution. Referring the contents of clause 8 of trust deed dated

08.08.2019, it is also submitted that if any member is found guilty of any offence, then he/she shall be removed from the trust, but no such procedure was ever followed. No member has made signature on the amended deed dated 08.08.2019. Complainant was included in the trust without informing him. Only applicant is signatory in the bank account of trust and he receives the donation directly in his account, therefore allegation of financial misappropriation of fund of trust by other members is false. The applicant is habitual offender. During investigation on 05.10.2024, Section 376(2)n I.P.C. was added, after submission of charge sheet against the applicant, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 7-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that applicant has formed a trust which was registered on

25.05.2017 in the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Varanasi. The amended trust deed was also registered on 08.08.2019. The complainants and their husband are also associated with the said trust, in different capacity holding different post. After dispute of trust, the applicant sent complainants to the police authorities apprehending his false implication by the rival group. The contents of paragraph no.37 of bail application, regarding fact of sending several complainants by the 17 of 21 applicant against the rival group of trust as noted above to the police authorities in anticipation of his false implication have not been denied either by the state or the complainant. F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 0159 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 354, 506, 504, 323, 147, 406 and 420 I.P.C. which alleged to have taken place in the year 2019-20 was lodged against the applicant on 12.04.2023 by Swati Singh wife of Deepak Kumar, who are Treasurer and Member respectively of the trust. F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 0188 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 376 I.P.C.which alleged to have taken place on

11.03.2020 was lodged against the applicant-Chandra Bhooshan Singh on 30.04.2023 by Smt. Babita Singh, who is Secretary of the trust. Similarly F.I.R. of the present case being Case Crime No. 421 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 328, 376 and 506 I.P.C.which alleged to have taken place in August 2022 was lodged against the applicant- Chandra Bhooshan Singh on 20.09.2024 by Smt. Anchal Singh, who is Dy. Secretary of the trust. All the complainants are also related / acquainted to each other. From the information received to the applicant under the right of information Act, as noted above, prima facie, I find force in the submission made on behalf of the applicant that he was apprehended by the police prior to registration of F.I.R. and in this regard a call was also made on 19.09.2024 at 22:44:23 to mobile police by dialling helpline no. 112 from mobile no.8471061846 of Nitesh Kothari. Though the said information is not part of case diary, but it is a government document based upon reliable evidence and issued by a 18 of 21 statutory authority, therefore same cannot be ignored. Specific date and time of alleged incident of rape has not been disclosed by the victim in the F.I.R. which has been lodged after inordinate delay of more than two Years, which is also one of the essential ingredients for framing charge against the applicant. No doubt in the case of allegation of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix should be given primary consideration, but at the same time, it should also be kept in mind that now-a-days there can be no presumption that in all the matters, prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully. Lodging F.I.R. of rape after two years in mid night and prompt arrest of the applicant, prima facie indicate that police was already briefed and every thing was happened in a pre-planed manner, because it is not done in every case. It is well settled that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. This Court is also of the view that now-a-days, it is not safe to treat/accept the oral allegations of complainant as gospel truth without any corroborative material relevant with regard to nature of allegations. It is well settled that the conclusion of a case shall not be drawn merely from the allegation made in F.I.R. but considering all the materials and other attending circumstances. There are several disputed facts, Which are required to be proved by the prosecution and accused before the trial Court after leading evidence in accordance with law, hence there is no need to discuss much more. 19 of 21 8-Under the facts and circumstances, possibility of false implication of the applicant making allegation of rape against him after two years can-not be ruled out particularly in the situation when there is financial dispute of trust and complainant, her husband as well as her other associates are also office bearers of the trust established by the applicant in the year 2017, in which he is a president. 9-As a fall out and consequence of aforesaid discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 10-Let the applicant-Chandra Bhooshan Singh @ Prabhuji be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall 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 or tamper with the evidence. 20 of 21 (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. 11-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. 12-It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date:14.02.2025 Saurabh 21 of 21 SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

5-The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are as under :-

5.1-The applicant is a trustee of the trust ‘Aadhyatmik Aashram’ at Varanasi established by him in the year 2017 prior to the alleged incident and is having command over spiritual yoga, therefore, many people are attached to the applicant to learn yoga. The said trust was registered on

25.05.2017 in the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Varanasi. The amended trust deed was also registered on 08.08.2019, in which following 14 persons are members, holding different posts in trust, which are as under :- i. Chandra Bhooshan Singh @ Prabhuji (applicant / founder and president of trustee). ii. Smt. Mani Singh (wife of the applicant / Vice President). 3 of 21 iii. Smt. Babita Singh (Secretary). iv. Smt. Aanchal Singh (Deputy Secretary / complainant). v. Smt. Swati Singh (Treasurer). vi. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh (Member). Vii. Mr. Sanjay Singh (Member). viii. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh (Member). ix. Mr. Shailesh Singh (Member). x. Smt. Priya Singh (Member). xi. Smt. Vidhya Singh (Member). xii. Mr. Shuman Singh (Member). xiii. Mr. Vikas (Member/husband of the complainant). xiv. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh (Member). The copy of the registered deed dated 08.08.2019 has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application.

5.2-Mr. Sanjay Singh, whose name has find place at serial no. vii of the trust deed dated 08.08.2019 was looking after the Finance and Administration of the said trust has misappropriated the funds of the trust behind the back of the applicant, for which he was scolded by the applicant and ousted from the said trust. Thereafter, Sanjay Singh and his associates have threatened the applicant for dire consequences, after which applicant in anticipation of his false implication, sent his complaints dated 21.10.2023, 4 of 21

14.03.2024 and 22.07.2024 to the Superintendent of Police (Commissioner of Police), Varanasi by speed-post for hatching a criminal conspiracy by Sanjay Singh, Babita Singh, Aanchal Singh (victim), Sudhir Kumar Singh, Swati Singh and their associates to falsely implicate the applicant, but no action has been taken by the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi in the matter.

5.3-On account of said financial dispute of trust, Sanjay Singh (Member of the trust), who is master mind of this case, in order to settle his personal score, started hatching a conspiracy to falsely implicate the applicant and to lower down his reputation in the society. In this regard, it is pointed out that Sanjay Singh got a first information report lodged on

12.04.2023 through Swati Singh wife of Deepak Kumar, who are Treasurer and Member of the trust respectively, which was registered at Case Crime No. 0159 of 2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 354, 506, 504, 323, 147, 406 and 420 I.P.C. at Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi against Chandra Bhooshan Singh (applicant), Mitesh Khotari and 8-10 disciples. Then applicant preferred a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9663 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2023 of this Court granting protection to the applicant in accordance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

5.4-Thereafter, Mr. Sanjay Singh (Member of the trust) got another first information report lodged through his wife Smt. 5 of 21 Babita Singh (Secretary of the trust) against the applicant- Chandra Bhooshan Singh, Nand Lal and Aalisha, which was registered at Case Crime No. 0188 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 376 I.P.C. at Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi (Commissionerate Varanasi), in which also during investigation, applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.08.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9689 of 2023 and after submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., applicant has again preferred Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4907 of 2024, in which also interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the applicant vide order dated 08.07.2024 which was extended from time to time and the matter is still pending.

5.5-After granting above anticipatory bails to the applicant, the aforesaid rival group of the applicant taking the concerned Police Officers in confidence, made a plan to first arrest the applicant and then lodged F.I.R. and in order to execute the said plan the police personnel, who were in collusion with rival group of the applicant, came at the house of the applicant on 19.09.2024 at 10:30 pm and arrested him, whereas at that time, no F.I.R. was in-existence. With regard to said illegal arrest of the applicant, it is further submitted that a call was also made on 19.09.2024 at 22:44:23 to mobile police by dialling helpline no. 112 from mobile no. 8471061846 of Nitesh Kothari. In order to give strength to his his submission, learned counsel for applicant also produced a copy of an information received under the right of information Act, which is extracted herein below:- 6 of 21 7 of 21

5.6-Apart from the aforesaid fact, to establish the factum of illegal arrest of the applicant by police personnel in the night of 19.09.2024 from his house as well as F.I.R. is anti-dated and anti-timed, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon some CCTV footage / photographs of residential Society, in which applicant’s house is situated, which have been brought on record as annexure nos. 1 and 2 of rejoinder affidavit dated 07.11.2024. Much emphasis has been given by contending that despite best effort made from 8 of 21 the side of the applicant, the investigating officer did not take these important evidence and in order to save the skin of police personnel, who were involved in illegal arrest of the applicant, has neither made any investigation in this regard nor made the same as part of case diary.

5.7-After illegal arrest of the applicant on 19.09.2024 at 10:30 pm, a false first information report of the alleged victim Aanchal Singh was registered on 20.09.2024 at 01:20 AM at Case Crime No. 0124 of 2024 for the alleged offence under Section 328, 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi after two years of the alleged offence of rape, which according to the complainant took place in the month of August, 2022.

5.8-At this stage, much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of financial dispute of trust.

5.9- There is no plausible explanation of inordinate delay of more than two years in getting the F.I.R. lodged.

5.10- It is also pointed out that the complainant neither in F.I.R. nor in her statement recorded during investigation has disclosed the specific date and time of alleged incident of rape.

5.11- Complainant has also made allegation that under the threat, applicant committed rape on her several times, but for the alleged repeated act of rape also, she neither in the F.I.R. nor during the investigation, disclosed the specific date, time and place of alleged incident of rape. Even she has not 9 of 21 disclosed that on which date she told everything to her husband.

5.12- Referring the F.I.R. it has also argued that as per own averment of the victim that in August, 2022 victim along with her husband started living secretly at different places, hence, the allegation of the victim that after August, 2022 also applicant committed rape on her is false on the face of record itself. Victim also did not disclose her address, where she was living with her husband after August 2022. The investigating officer also did not take pain to investigate the said allegation of the complainant.

5.13-Referring the medical examination report of the victim, it is also submitted that the victim was medically examined on

20.09.2024 at 12:45 PM and her medico legal report was prepared by Dr. Sonal Tripathi, District Women Hospital, Varanasi, wherein in the column of description, it is mentioned NAD “not prepared because case is old according to the victim is of August 2022” and as such, except the false allegation of the victim in the F.I.R and in her statement, recorded during investigation, there is no corroborative material against the applicant in support of the allegation of complainant.

5.14- So far as the fact as stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. that the applicant had managed a room in Aashram is concerned, it is submitted that said fact is also false and against the evidence on record. Referring the rent agreement between Sanjay Singh and Vikas Kumar (husband of the victim) dated 06.08.2019 which has been brought on record 10 of 21 as Annexure No. RA-II to the rejoinder affidavit dated

12.12.2024, it is pointed out that in fact complainant was tenant of Sanjay Singh with effect from 01.07.2019 and in the said rent agreement dated 06.08.2019, complainant-Aanchal Singh is also one of the witness.

5.15-It is also argued that all the complainants against the applicant are related to each other. In this regard, it is submitted that Smt. Swati Singh, who has lodged F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 0159 of 2023 against the applicant is treasurer of the trust and is bhabhi of the complainant- Aanchal Singh (Deputy Secretary of the trust) and Smt. Babita Singh (Secretary of the trust) who lodged the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 188 of 2023 at Police Station Shivpur District Varanasi is wife of Mr. Sanjay Singh (Member of the trust) and sister-in-law of the complainant of this case.

5.16-A joint family photograph of Smt. Babita Singh, Smt. Swati Singh and complainant-Anchal Singh and photograph of Vikas Singh (husband of complaint) with Brijesh Singh, Shailesh Singh, Sudhir Kumar Singh (Sub-Inspector) and Sanjay Singh as well as a joint photograph of Sanjay Singh, Nishant Singh (son of Sanjay Singh), Brijesh Singh, Shailesh Singh (nephew of Sanjay Singh) and Vikas Kumar (husband of the complainant) have also been brought on record as annexure no. RA-1 with the rejoinder affidavit dated

12.12.2024.

5.17- Referring the conduct of the rival Group, it is submitted that during the pendency of this bail application, the aforesaid rival group in order to cause irreparable loss and 11 of 21 injury to the applicant also got a first information report lodged through Sushma Singh (member of trust) wife of Sudhir Kumar Singh on 25.10.2024 registered at Case Crime No. 0501 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 328, 354 and 506 I.P.C. against the applicant and unknown deciples, in which applicant has been granted bail vide order dated

16.11.2024 of the trial court.

5.18- It is further submitted that Sanjay Singh through his tenant had also got a F.I.R. lodged against the applicant, which was registered at case crime no. 305 of 2022 under Section 376(2)n I.P.C. but later on complainant filed her affidavit that she was mis-guided by Sanjay Singh and others. Now she does not want to prosecute the applicant. The investigation of the said case is still pending.

5.19- Much emphasis has been given by pointing out that one Bhawana Singh was also being compelled and pressurised to lodge F.I.R. against the applicant and she was beaten also. She made an effort to lodged F.I.R. in this regard but her F.I.R. was not lodged by the police, then she has approached the Court by filling an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide order dated 08.08.2024, thereafter F.I.R. of Bhawana Singh was registered on

04.09.2024 at case crime no.383 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 452 and 506 IPC at police station Shivpur, District Varanasi against Baba, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Babita Singh, Nishant Singh, Shivam Singh Swati Singh, Dharm Dev Singh and Arbind Kumar. The contents of F.I.R. are reproduced as under :- 12 of 21 थाना शि*वपुर, मोह्ቤा 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, धम.देव िሺसह पु्ቔ अ्ሺात ( थाना शि*वपुर, जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा, 5. हिन*ातिሺसहउᯚⓦ. शि*वम 4. हिनवासी थाना शि*वपुर, वाराणसी, पोस्ट चहहिनया जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा चन्दौ䨈尚ी 7. अयोध्या धाम का䨈尚ोनी, ्ቚाቕኌथनी के नाना) " नक䨈尚 तहरीर हिहन्दी वाहिदनी----------- न्याया䨈尚य ्ቦीमान⺘䥛 मुख्य न्यायियक मजि(cid:21)स्ट्रेट वाराणसी ्ቚा०प०सं० सन⺘䥛 भावना िሺसह पु्ቔी दीपक कुमार िሺसह हिनवाजिसनी प्䨈尚ाट नं0 सी-27 अयोध्या धाम का䨈尚ोनी थाना शि*वपुर जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी䦱䄁 ्ቚाቕኌथनी बनाम 1. बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह पु्ቔ स्व० माक.ण्डेय िሺसह हिनवासी मकान नं0 एस0एच0 5/155 सी-10, मोह्ቤा 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, थाना जि(cid:21)䨈尚ावाराणसी䦱䄁 2. शि*वपुर, बहिबतािሺसहपत्नीबाबासं(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहहिनवासी मकान नं0 एस.एच. 5/155 सी-10, थाना शि*वपुर, जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी䦱䄁 3. *ीतां*ुिሺसहउᯚⓦ. सत्यमपु्ቔगणबाबा मकान नं0 एस.एच. 5/155 सी-10, मोह्ቤा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह हिनवासी- 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, स्वाती िሺसह पु्ቔी धम.देव िሺसह पत्नी दीपक थाना शि*वपुर, कुमार िሺसह हिनवासी प्䨈尚ाट नं0 सी-27 हिनवासी गुरेरा, जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी䦱䄁 6. थाना चहहिनया, अरहिवन्द कुमार वमा. पु्ቔ अ्ሺात उ्ቈर ्ቚदे* उप हिनरी्ቌक पद पर हिनयु्ሹ䦱䄁 .... अशिभयु्ሹगण ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ अन्तगत. धारा 156 (3) सी०आर०पी०सी०थाना- शि*वपुरवाराणसी䦱䄁(cid:21)रिरयेसनर्ቌकहिपतादीपककुमार िሺसह पु्ቔ शि*व*ंकर िሺसह हिनवासी म0नं0-एस.एस. 5/155 सी-10, मोह्ቤा जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी䦱䄁 ्ቚाቕኌथनी हिनम्न हिनवेदन करती है- 1. 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, सा䨈尚 पु्ቔी यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी भावना िሺसह (cid:21)न्म यितशिथ 10.02.2008 उ቞७ 15 दीपक कुमार िሺसह (cid:21)ो हिक ᯚⓦौ(cid:21)ी है वत.मान जिसयायिचन ग्䨈尚ेशि*यर म㛋⺜ हिनयु्ሹ है वत.मान पता प्䨈尚ाट नम्बर सी-27 अयोध्या धाम का䨈尚ोनी थाना शि*वपुर, वाराणसी हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी पह䨈尚े अपने सगे ᯚⓦुᯚⓦा बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह पु्ቔ स्व० मोह्ቤा 䨈尚ቌኚमनपुर, माक.ण्डेय िሺसह पता मकान नं0 एस.एच. 5/155 सी-10, थाना शि*वपुर, के यहा ्ቚाቕኌथनी जि(cid:21)䨈尚ा वाराणसी (cid:21)ो हिक एक तांहि्ቔक बाबा है, सपरिरवारजि(cid:21)सम㛋⺜सगाछोटाभा쩶룶सुभा꼉ꙗिሺसहमम्मीस्वातीिሺसहपु्ቔीधम.देविሺसह पापाउपरो्ሹ दीपक कुमार िሺसहऔरदादा साथ म㛋⺜ रहते थे䦱䄁बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह, बहिबता िሺसह (cid:21)ो हिक बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह को पत्नी हैऔर इनके दोनो बेटे्ቅम*勡寞हिन*ांतिሺसहउᯚⓦ. शि*वम, *ीतां*ुिሺसहउᯚⓦ. सत्यमहिवगतक쩶룶महीनों सेचन््ቖभू꼉ꙗणिሺसह(्ቚभु(cid:21)ी) पु्ቔस्व०माक.ण्डेयिሺसहके पैसेकाघोटा䨈尚ाशिछपाने और पैसा ववू䨈尚 करके अपना क(cid:21). चुकाने के आ*य से झूठे आरोप 䨈尚गाने की यो(cid:21)ना बना रहे थे हिᯚⓦर आरोप भी 䨈尚गाया䦱䄁 ्ቚाቕኌथनी की मम्मी उपरो्ሹ स्वाती जिसह का तं्ቔ मं्ቔ से व*ीकरण करके बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह अपने हिगरोह म㛋⺜ *ाहिम䨈尚 कर लि䨈尚या है और उनसे चन््ቖभू꼉ꙗण िሺसह (्ቚभु(cid:21)ी) पर झूठा केस भी करवायाहै䦱䄁बाबासं(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहऔरउसकापरिरवारअपनेहिगरोहम㛋⺜*ाहिम䨈尚 करने के लि䨈尚ये हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी को चन्दभू꼉ꙗण िሺसह (्ቚभु(cid:21)ी) पर झूठे संगीन आरोप 䨈尚गाने के लि䨈尚ए दुष््ቚेरिरत कर रहे थे जि(cid:21)ससे चन्दभू꼉ꙗण िሺसह (्ቚभु(cid:21)ी) पर पोक्सो (POCSO) एक्ट 䨈尚गाया (cid:21)ा सके और उनसे पैसे वसू䨈尚े (cid:21)ा सके䦱䄁 (cid:21)ब ्ቚाቕኌथनी ने मना कर हिदया तब उपरो्ሹ बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह ओर इसके बेटे ्ቅम*勡寞 हिन*ांतिሺसहउᯚⓦ. शि*वम, *ीतां*ूिሺसहउᯚⓦ. सत्यमने्ቚाቕኌथनीको*ारीरिरकऔर मानजिसक रूप से ्ቚताशिणत करना ्ቚारम्भ हिकया (cid:21)ो हिक हिदसम्बर 2022 से वत.मान समय तक कर ही रहे है䦱䄁 उपरो्ሹ बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह और इनके दोनो बेटों ने हिम䨈尚कर ्ቚाቕኌथनी को बहुत मारा- हिपटा ्ቚाቕኌथनी के बा䨈尚 पकቑቱ कर घसीटेऔरकांटेदारचम्मच (ᯚⓦोक) से(cid:21)ानसेमारनेकीकोशि**हिकए䦱䄁्ቚाቕኌथनी कीमम्मीउपरो्ሹस्वातीिሺसहभीघटनास्थ䨈尚परउपቝኌस्थतथीवोहम्ቚाቕኌथनी की नह सुनी बቝኌ[क हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी को ही डाटा की तुम ही ग䨈尚त हो और बाबा सं(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहऔरउसके परिरवारकाहीसाथदी, (cid:21)ब्ቚाቕኌथनीइसवारदात को साव.(cid:21)हिनक करने की बात कही तब उसके भो(cid:21)न म㛋⺜ हिव꼉ꙗ ((cid:21)हर) डा䨈尚कर मारने की धमकी दी ग쩶룶䦱䄁 (cid:21)ब ्ቚाቕኌथनी ने उपरो्ሹ घटना अपने पापा उपरो्ሹ दीपक कुमार िሺसह को बताया तब उन्होंने अपने परिरवार को वत.माना पते पर स्थानातरिरत(शि*फ्ट) तब्ቚाቕኌथनीकीमम्मीनेयहांभीहम्ቚाቕኌथनी कोमारा- पीटाहिᯚⓦर्ቚाቕኌथनीकीदादीउसकीसुर्ቌाके लि䨈尚एसाथरहनेआ쩶룶तब बाबासं(cid:21)यिሺसहके कहनेपर्ቚाቕኌथनीके मम्मीके ्ቛारादादीकोमारागयाऔर दादा को हिव꼉ꙗा्ሹ खाना देने से वो बीमार हो गए और हቝኌस्पट䨈尚 आ쩶룶.सी.यू. म㛋⺜ करवाहिदया, थाना पर हिदनांक 17.10.2023 भत_ होने के बाद अपने गांव च䨈尚े गए䦱䄁 वत.मान पते पर आ (cid:21)ाने के बाद भी उपरो्ሹ बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह और उसके दोनों 䨈尚ቑቱके हिन*ात िሺसह उᯚⓦ. शि*वम, *ीतां*ु िሺसह उᯚⓦ. सत्यम ्ቚाቕኌथनी के घर म㛋⺜ राहि्ቔ म㛋⺜ घुसकर हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी कोमाराऔर्ቚाቕኌथनीके बा䨈尚पकቑቱकरसरकोमाब.䨈尚परक쩶룶बारपटकाबाबा सं(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहके कहनेपर्ቚाቕኌथनीकीमम्मी्ቛारा्ቚाቕኌथनीके पापाउपरो्ሹ दीपक कुमार िሺसह पर झूठा केस व आरोप 䨈尚गाकर कोट. मा*.䨈尚 करवाने का ्ቚयासहिकयागयाऔरपापाकोदुष््ቚेरिरतहिकयाहिकतुम(cid:21)[दीमरक्योंनह(cid:21)ाते जि(cid:21)ससे तुम्हारी पूरी प㛋⺜*न मुझे हिम䨈尚 (cid:21)ायेगी तत्प्ቐात⺘䥛 ्ቚाቕኌथनी के हिपता दीपक कुमार िሺसह आत्महत्या करने (cid:21)ा रहे थे 䨈尚ेहिकन हम ्ቚाቕኌथनी के समझाने पर हिवचारबद䨈尚े हिक बाबास(cid:21)यकुमारिሺसहिሺसह्ቛाराधमकीदीगयीहिक यहिदतुम और तुम्हारे पापा हमारे हिगरोह म㛋⺜ नह आते तो हम तुम्हे और तुम्हारे पापा को (cid:21)े䨈尚करवाद㛋⺜गे䦱䄁औरहमारीपहुचबहुतउपरपुलि䨈尚सथानेऔरगुण्डे माहिᯚⓦयाओं तक है हम उंचे रसुख वा䨈尚े व्यहि्ሹ हैहमारा को쩶룶 कुछ नही कर सकता䦱䄁 2. यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी के नाना धम.देव िሺसह पु्ቔ अ्ሺात पता हिनवासी ्ቇाम गुरेरा थाना चहहिनयापोस्टचहहिनयाजि(cid:21)䨈尚ाचन्दौ䨈尚ीउ०्ቚ०्ቚाቕኌथनीके मम्मीउपरो्ሹस्वाती िሺसह और बाबा सं(cid:21)य कुमार िሺसह के हिगरोह का साथ दे रहे है䦱䄁 और सभी अपराध को हि्ቅयाቝኌन्वत करने म㛋⺜ बराबर के हिहस्सेदार हैं䦱䄁 ये बहुत ही घृणा एवं संगीन अपराध है इनका हिगरोह है (cid:21)ो हिकसी पर झूठे आरोप 䨈尚गाकर मुकदमे म㛋⺜ ᯚⓦंसाते है और मनमानी तरीके से पैसा वसू䨈尚ने का काय. करते है䦱䄁 3. यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी ने इ䨈尚ाका, को एक ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ हिपता दीपककुमारिሺसहके माध्यमसेहिदयाऔरएकस्पीडपोस्टके माध्यमसेहिदया थाने पर ्ቚाቕኌथनी का बयान नह लि䨈尚या गया ना ही को쩶룶 काय.वाही की गयीऔर थाने से स्पीड पोस्ट के ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ को वायर䨈尚 करके ्ቚाथहिमकी द(cid:21). करने के पह䨈尚े ही हिवपयि्ቌयों को दे हिदया गया䦱䄁 ए.सी.पी. आहिᯚⓦस और महिह䨈尚ा आयोग म㛋⺜ भी्ቚाथ.नाप्ቔहिदयागयापरउसपरभीको쩶룶काय.वाहीनहहिकयागया䦱䄁4. यह हिक्ቚाቕኌथनी्ቛाराहिदयेगयेआ쩶룶.(cid:21)ी.आर.एस. सं0-20019723025596 हिदनाक 28.10.2023 के अनुसार थाना शि*वपुर के स्थानीय हिववेचक महोदय ्ቛारा काय.वाही रिरपोट. पूरी तरह से झूठा है केव䨈尚 मनगढंत तथा ्ቝामक कथनों पर आधारिरतहै, जि(cid:21)सकाउ्ሹ्ቚकरणसेको쩶룶सम्बन्धनहहै䦱䄁 5. यहहिक हिववेचक महादेव ्ቛारा रिरपोट. 䨈尚गाते समय रिरपोट. म㛋⺜ हिदखाये है हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी से बात हिकया परन्तुऐसाकुछभीनहहुआहैतथा्ቚाቕኌथनीसेहिववेचकमहोदयकाको쩶룶बात या मु䨈尚ाकात नह है䦱䄁 6. यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी के उ्ሹ ्ቚकरण के सम्बन्ध म㛋⺜ थाना शि*वपुर के स्थानीय हिववेचनायिधकारी ्ቛारा ्ቚयितवादीगण/ हिवप्ቌीगण से सम्पक. करके ᯚⓦ(cid:21)_/ वाहिदनी से को쩶룶 सम्पक. नह हुआ䦱䄁 7. यह हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी के उ्ሹ ्ቚकरण म㛋⺜ हिकसी भी ्ቚकार का को쩶룶 ्ቚसा*हिनक काय.वाही नह हो पा रही हैं तथा ्ቚाቕኌथनी काᯚⓦी थक हारकर माननीय न्याया䨈尚य के यहां ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ दालिख䨈尚 कर रही है लि䨈尚हा(cid:21)ा ्ቚाቕኌथनी के करवा कर उ्ሹ ्ቚ्ቅण के सम्बन्ध म㛋⺜ हिकसी स्ቌम अयिधकारी ्ቛारा सुसंगतधाराओंम㛋⺜मुकदमापं(cid:21)ीकृतहिकया(cid:21)ानाआवश्यकतथान्यायसगतहै䦱䄁 ्ቚाथ.न अतएव माननीय न्याया䨈尚य से ्ቚाथ.ना है हिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी के ्ቚाथ.ना प्ቔ को सं्ሺान म㛋⺜䨈尚ेतेहुएस्ቌमअयिधकारी्ቛाराहिववेचनाकरसुसंगतधाराओंम㛋⺜मुकदमा पं(cid:21)ीकृतकरनेकीकृपाकर㛋⺜ताहिकन्यायहोवे䦱䄁" झूठा रिरपोट. सं䨈尚瞌漂 कर हिदया है (cid:21)बहिक ्ቚाቕኌथनी/ हिववेचना

5.20-On the strength of aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that several FIRs have been lodged against the applicant only to grab the property of the trust with an ulterior motive on the false and concocted story. In fact no such incident took place as alleged in the F.I.R. 14 of 21

5.21- Investigating officer has not conducted fair investigation, whereas proper investigation is one of the essentials of the criminal justice system and an integral facet of rule of law.

5.22- Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, it is pointed out that apart from aforesaid three criminal cases lodged against the applicant after financial dispute of trust, two cases were also lodged against the applicant being case crime no. 68 of 2010 under Sections 323,504 and 506 I.P.C. at police Station- Luxa, District Varanasi on the basis of Non Cognizable Report, in which earlier compromise took place but subsequently on account of dispute with Sanjay Singh, who had taken surety/ bail of the applicant, got the order- sheet changed and in this regard inquiry is going on by registering Misc. Case No.1749 of 2024 before the concerned Court below. A complainant case no.7135 of 2016 was also lodged against the applicant, which was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

5.23-Referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 11 SCC 648, it is argued that in the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that mere pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

5.24-Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15 of 21

20.09.2024 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. 6-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. date 20.09.2024.They next submit that the delay in lodging F.I.R. has been explained by the victim that due to fear she along with her husband were changing places to save their lives but when she came to know that other women filed case against applicant, only then she lodged F.I.R. against applicant on 20.09.2024 at 01:25 AM. Since allegation against the applicant is serious in nature, therefore he was immediately arrested by the police near V.D.A. colony, Varanasi on 20.09.2024 at 11:30AM. At the time of arrest of the applicant, five mobile phone were recovered from his possession, which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramnagar, Varanasi, which were received there on 01.10.2024. So far as stand of the applicant that he was arrested prior to lodging F.I.R. is concerned, it is argued that no such CCTV footage have been provided by the accused during investigation, hence no reliance can be placed on the same. The applicant has three residences, where in all such places he carries out his illegal activities. The applicant has formed a trust and has given various feature of trust, which shows that he was doing all kind of illegal activities and in the garb of trust, he has spoiled the life of many women. F.I.R. was lodged in mid night because victim was not ready to go to the police station even in day light due to fear of the applicant. Victim was introduced to the applicant by her 16 of 21 husband, but she was not aware about the misdeed of the applicant, later on she came to know about the character of the appicant when he committed rape on her in August 2022, hence, delay of two years is not fatal for the prosecution. Referring the contents of clause 8 of trust deed dated

08.08.2019, it is also submitted that if any member is found guilty of any offence, then he/she shall be removed from the trust, but no such procedure was ever followed. No member has made signature on the amended deed dated 08.08.2019. Complainant was included in the trust without informing him. Only applicant is signatory in the bank account of trust and he receives the donation directly in his account, therefore allegation of financial misappropriation of fund of trust by other members is false. The applicant is habitual offender. During investigation on 05.10.2024, Section 376(2)n I.P.C. was added, after submission of charge sheet against the applicant, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 7-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that applicant has formed a trust which was registered on

25.05.2017 in the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Varanasi. The amended trust deed was also registered on 08.08.2019. The complainants and their husband are also associated with the said trust, in different capacity holding different post. After dispute of trust, the applicant sent complainants to the police authorities apprehending his false implication by the rival group. The contents of paragraph no.37 of bail application, regarding fact of sending several complainants by the 17 of 21 applicant against the rival group of trust as noted above to the police authorities in anticipation of his false implication have not been denied either by the state or the complainant. F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 0159 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 354, 506, 504, 323, 147, 406 and 420 I.P.C. which alleged to have taken place in the year 2019-20 was lodged against the applicant on 12.04.2023 by Swati Singh wife of Deepak Kumar, who are Treasurer and Member respectively of the trust. F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 0188 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 376 I.P.C.which alleged to have taken place on

11.03.2020 was lodged against the applicant-Chandra Bhooshan Singh on 30.04.2023 by Smt. Babita Singh, who is Secretary of the trust. Similarly F.I.R. of the present case being Case Crime No. 421 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 328, 376 and 506 I.P.C.which alleged to have taken place in August 2022 was lodged against the applicant- Chandra Bhooshan Singh on 20.09.2024 by Smt. Anchal Singh, who is Dy. Secretary of the trust. All the complainants are also related / acquainted to each other. From the information received to the applicant under the right of information Act, as noted above, prima facie, I find force in the submission made on behalf of the applicant that he was apprehended by the police prior to registration of F.I.R. and in this regard a call was also made on 19.09.2024 at 22:44:23 to mobile police by dialling helpline no. 112 from mobile no.8471061846 of Nitesh Kothari. Though the said information is not part of case diary, but it is a government document based upon reliable evidence and issued by a 18 of 21 statutory authority, therefore same cannot be ignored. Specific date and time of alleged incident of rape has not been disclosed by the victim in the F.I.R. which has been lodged after inordinate delay of more than two Years, which is also one of the essential ingredients for framing charge against the applicant. No doubt in the case of allegation of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix should be given primary consideration, but at the same time, it should also be kept in mind that now-a-days there can be no presumption that in all the matters, prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully. Lodging F.I.R. of rape after two years in mid night and prompt arrest of the applicant, prima facie indicate that police was already briefed and every thing was happened in a pre-planed manner, because it is not done in every case. It is well settled that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. This Court is also of the view that now-a-days, it is not safe to treat/accept the oral allegations of complainant as gospel truth without any corroborative material relevant with regard to nature of allegations. It is well settled that the conclusion of a case shall not be drawn merely from the allegation made in F.I.R. but considering all the materials and other attending circumstances. There are several disputed facts, Which are required to be proved by the prosecution and accused before the trial Court after leading evidence in accordance with law, hence there is no need to discuss much more. 19 of 21 8-Under the facts and circumstances, possibility of false implication of the applicant making allegation of rape against him after two years can-not be ruled out particularly in the situation when there is financial dispute of trust and complainant, her husband as well as her other associates are also office bearers of the trust established by the applicant in the year 2017, in which he is a president. 9-As a fall out and consequence of aforesaid discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 10-Let the applicant-Chandra Bhooshan Singh @ Prabhuji be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall 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 or tamper with the evidence. 20 of 21 (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. 11-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. 12-It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date:14.02.2025 Saurabh 21 of 21 SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad