HC bench denies bail to Rampal

BAIL SOUGHT IN TWO DIFFERENT CASES; ANOTHER BENCH SEEKS AFFIDAVIT FROM POLICE ON SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS

CHANDIGARH: The bail plea of selfstyled godman Rampal was dismissed by a high court bench, while another bench sought affidavit from a senior police officer on security arrangements.

Rampal had sought bail to attend the marriage ceremony of his granddaughter on July 22.

The Satlok Ashram head has been convicted for life imprisonment without ‘remission’ by a Hisar trial court in murder cases registered against him in 2014.

The FIRs were registered after large-scale violence was witnessed at his ashram in Hisar during a November 2014 operation launched by multiple agencies to nab him as he refused to appear before the high court.

In the entire operation, six lives were lost and 110 police personnel and 70 civilians had sustained injuries. He was convicted in October 2018 in two cases.

‘SHOCKED AND SURPRISED’

Dismissing the plea, the bench of Justice SN Satyanarayana and Justice Archana Puri observed that the bench was ‘shocked and surprised’ to see details of what transpired in 2014.

“With such a background and also considering that there are four more cases registered against him... His antecedents would indicate that it would not be in the interest of the state to show any concession to the applicant/appellant until this matter is taken up and heard on merits,” the bench said while dismissing the plea.

The bench also took note of the fact that his son has already been released on bail.

Meanwhile, the bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Avneesh Jhingan sought within two days an affidavit from the officer in charge of law and order in Hisar assuring the court that adequate security will be deployed at the wedding venue to ensure that there is no large gathering of people and that Covid-19 guidelines would be followed.

Assurance has also been sought that Rampal will surrender peacefully after the bail.

NEXT HEARING ON JULY 6

The court is to take up the matter again on July 6.

Senior advocate Vinod Ghai, who appeared in both the petitions, said the bail was sought in two different FIRs.

Hence, there was nothing wrong in filing two different petitions.

However, ordinarily, these are listed before one bench, he said, adding that judges were intimated about this as well.