JUDGMENT 1. - All these bail applications relate to the so-called 'Sex Scandal Case' of Ajmer and arise out of the same First Information Report, as such, they may be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 2. At the out-set, I may say that the facts are startling, more I went in depth of the facts, more I was shocked to know as to how the unmarried school/college going girls and other women belonging to well to do families have been subjected to sexual exploitation, black mailing and humiliation by a gang of persons by all sort of means and influences. Some of the victims were receiving education in the institutions like Sophia Girls School and Savitri College, Ajmer. The modus operendi of the exploiters had been to trap innocent girls under false allurements and friendship, then they were sexually forced under terror or even by use of force and their obscene snaps were taken to blackmail them in future. Some girls were blackmailed to the extent of bringing other girls for the exploiters. The magnitude of the scandal can be visualised by the fact that it had rocked the whole State of Rajasthan and its impact was felt all over the country. 3. Another distressing aspect of the case is that at the initial stage, the local police failed to perform its duties. For six months or so, no action was taken by it, inspite of the fact that news items were published in the various local and State level newspapers wherein the sex scandal and blackmailing of innocent girls at Ajmer was high-lighted. In some papers, photographs were also published. Various voluntary organisations also raised the voice to take action against the miscreants. The city of Ajmer observed 'HARTAL, on 18.5.1992 on a call given by various organisations. Some organisations also organised 'Dharna' to put pressure on the local police and also threatened to start agitation. At this late state the police came in motion, perhaps apprehending public agitation, if it further remained inactive. Had the police been vigilant and timely effective steps were taken by it, the miscreants would not have succeeded in destroying and burning material evidence, i.e. obscene photos, video cassettes, tapes etc. which would have provided much assistance to unearth the entire episode to its last drop. 4. Had the police been vigilant and timely effective steps were taken by it, the miscreants would not have succeeded in destroying and burning material evidence, i.e. obscene photos, video cassettes, tapes etc. which would have provided much assistance to unearth the entire episode to its last drop. 4. Be that as it may, the first step to unearth the scandal was taken on May 31, 1992 when the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, deputed Shri Hari Prasad Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police to make a confidential inquiry on some nude photos of ladies, their sexual exploitation and blackmailing. Mr. Sharma, after inquiry, traced out the persons, who were in the photographs with nude ladies and his inquiry further revealed that girls and ladies were sexually involved by use of force, under terror or deceit and their objectionable snaps were taken to blackmail them. It also revealed that the photographs were developed and printed at 'Ajmer Colour Lab' which is owned by the petitioner Harish Tolani. Mr. Sharma made a report in this connection, on which Crime No. 117/92 was registered at Police Station Ganj, at Ajmer. 5. Even after registration of the case, the investigation was not carried out with promptitude and secrecy. Immediate search of the premises of Ajmer Colour Lab was not made, houses of the miscreants were also not searched immediately, with the result that most of the documentary evidence was allowed to be destroyed by the offenders. There is material on record that the photographs and other materials a were burnt and destroyed. While deciding the bail application of the co-accused Mahesh Ludhiani, brother Justice V. S. Dave rightly observed that the investigation was not done with proper care at initial stages and many blurred areas were left out. Subsequent investigation was in right direction and, ultimately, a chargesheet came to be filed on 4.9.1992 against the petitioners and co-accused Parvesh Ansari, Mahesh Ludhiani and Farooq Chishti under various offences including 376(2) (g), 292/292-A, 120-B, Indian Penal Code. The concerned Magistrate then committed the case to the Court of Session, Ajmer, where charges have been framed on 27.5.1993. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing for Purshottam alias Babli vehemently contended that his client was only an employee in Ajmer Colour Lab and as a dutiful employee, he had developed and printed photographs on the instructions/directions of his master. The concerned Magistrate then committed the case to the Court of Session, Ajmer, where charges have been framed on 27.5.1993. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing for Purshottam alias Babli vehemently contended that his client was only an employee in Ajmer Colour Lab and as a dutiful employee, he had developed and printed photographs on the instructions/directions of his master. It was also contended that it was this accused, who brought the scandal in light by handing over four photographs to the police. Then it was contended that his client was removed from service in May-June, 1991 much before the case was registered and this fact alone showed that he was not in league or conspiracy with other accused persons. Not only this, he was assaulted and beaten by other accused persons when they had apprehension that he was having some photographs in his possession. Mr. Alok Sharma for Harish Tolani contended that his client was a partner of Ajmer Colour Lab and there were other partners also. Counsel contended that there was no allegation against this accused that he raped any girl or otherwise aided in the commission of sexual exploitation of girls. According to the learned counsel, in Ajmer Colour Lab, the job work of developing and printing the photographs was done on payment basis, like other business activities and, as such, he should be released on bail. Mr. Biri Singh, appearing for Mr. Kailash Soni, stated that the prosecution witness Pushpa in her statement under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, did not allege that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her and no test identification parade was arranged, as such, he should be released on bail, on the same reasoning on which co-accused Mahesh Ludhaiu was ordered to be released on bail. For the petitioner Syed Anwar Chishti and Moinulla @ Puttan, their learned counsel contended that they were falsely implicated. For all the accused persons it was also vehemently contended that they were in custody for the last twenty months or so and on the ground of protracted trial, they have a right to be released on bail. 7. I gave my careful and anxious consideration to the above submissions. The entire record and the statements of the witnesses were minutely gone through by me. 7. I gave my careful and anxious consideration to the above submissions. The entire record and the statements of the witnesses were minutely gone through by me. I am conscious that, at this stage, it is desirable that nothing is said on the merits of the matter and no comment is made on the veracity of the witnesses. Trial in the case is still pending and observation by me in this incidental proceeding may influence the course of the trial. Appreciation of evidence is an exclusive domain of the trial court. At this stage I may only observe that from the statements of the witnesses of Km. Pushpa, Madhubala, Sangecta, Renu, Reshma, Monika, Maya, Manju, Archana, and other witnesses, it is evident that the accused persons meticulously trapped innocent girls on false allurement and friendship. They were forced to sexual activities under fear and terror and their objectionable photographs were taken which were subsequently used for blackmailing or sex exploitation. Some of the girls were compelled to arrange their fellow girls to oblige the exploiters. The innocent and unmarried girls were not only raped, but were blackmailed to any extent. The entire operations were carried out meticulously in a planned manner with a deep rooted conspiracy. The police has also seized two video cassettes, which were nothing but 'blue films'. Therefore, all the accused persons, who were connected with the conspiracy and were involved in the chain of the nefarious activities, should not be released on bail. They have committed heinous and grave offence against the society and particularly against the victims. It is difficult to describe and measure the mental torture and social humiliation of the innocent girls, who were the victims. In such a heinous offence, it hardly matters whether the accused had actually committed rape or otherwise participated in a different way to provide aid or assistance to the offenders. The act of the partner/ proprietor of Ajmer Colour Lab cannot be under-estimated. A perusal of the record shows that the investigating agency has been liberal towards its proprietor/ partners in not taking action against all of them. Their premises were not searched in time and they were allowed to destroy the objectionable negatives and printed photographs. The act of the partner/ proprietor of Ajmer Colour Lab cannot be under-estimated. A perusal of the record shows that the investigating agency has been liberal towards its proprietor/ partners in not taking action against all of them. Their premises were not searched in time and they were allowed to destroy the objectionable negatives and printed photographs. It also appears that other partners of the firm had also tried to suppress the entire matter.The discretionary power to admit to bail is not arbitrary but is judicial and is governed by the well established principles. While granting or refusing bail, gravity of the offence, severity of the punishment which a conviction will entail, the danger of witnesses being tampered with or terrorised and the character of the accused cannot be lost sight. In the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner are facing trial for grave offences and their conviction may call serve punishment. Some of the accused are rich and influential persons in the society, having political and administrative support. The very fact that local police did not take prompt steps in the matter goes to demonstrate their influence in the society. Not only this, every efforts were made by the accused persons to suppress the matter and the persons who were in possession of some material which could connect them with the crime,were not only threatened but were assaulted and beaten. The victims are innocent unmarried girls. They are undergoing great tension and humiliation, as such, it is essential that they should be kept free from all sorts of terror and fear, so that they may make free and true disclosure before the trial Court. 8. I am conscious that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused in jail has a right of speedy trial. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that the accused of offence should be speedily tried, so that in cases, where, bail, in proper exercise of discretion is refused, the accused persons have not to remain in jail longer than the period which is absolutely necessary. The law is well settled on this score that a protracted trial is a circumstance in favour of granting bail of persons charged with serious crimes. The law is well settled on this score that a protracted trial is a circumstance in favour of granting bail of persons charged with serious crimes. The courts should, therefore, strike a balance that on the one hand the accused should not be kept in jail longer than the period which is absolutely necessary, and that the course of justice is not interfered by the release of the accused on bail under heinous offence, on the other hand. In grave offences, where there is reasonable apprehension that the accused persons, if released on bail, shall make an attempt to interfere with the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses, bail should not be granted to them and proper direction be given to the trial court to expedite the trial. The present case is one of such cases. Otherwise also, the perusal of the record shows that most of the delay has been caused by the act of the accused-persons. The charge-sheet was filed on 3.9.1992 though the investigation against some other accused persons remained incomplete. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Ajmer without any delay, vide order dated 28.9.1992. In the trial Court arguments to frame charge, could not be heard either due to the fact that the accused did not appear in court or due to some other reason from their side. Various applications were moved on their behalf from time to time either by their lawyers to withdraw their power or to provide free legal aid even though they were having sufficient means to engage the lawyers. The charges were framed on 27.5.1993 and even thereafter the accused persons are moving applications after applications. On 17.7.1993 trial Court had fixed the next date as 23.8.1993 to record prosecution evidence with a further direction to proceed with the case day to day. Before the trial could proceed, the files of the case were summoned by this Court in S. B. Criminal Revision No. 151/93 filed by the co-accused Nasir Ahmed @ Tarjan, which has been heard alongwith these bail applications and is being decided by a separate order. I also do not agree with the argument of Mr. Biri Singh that the case of Kailash Soni stands on the same footing to that of co-accused Mahesh Ludhiani, who has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.9.1993. 9. I also do not agree with the argument of Mr. Biri Singh that the case of Kailash Soni stands on the same footing to that of co-accused Mahesh Ludhiani, who has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.9.1993. 9. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and each and every aspect of the matter, I am not inclined to release the petitioners, Moniulla alias Puttan, Harish Tolani, Syed Anwar Chishti and Kailash Soni. Their applications are, therefore, rejected. However, keeping in view that these accused persons are in jail since long I give the following directions for the expeditions trial : (i) That the trial Court shall fix a date, immediately after receiving the record of the case, for recording the prosecution evidence and the trial shall proceed day to day till the prosecution evidence is completed unless an adjournment becomes absolutely necessary in-between; (ii) that the Investigating officer is also directed to remain present till the statements of the prosecution witnesses are recorded. It shall be his duty to secure attendance of the prosecution witnesses and to get the summons served on them in time; (iii) If the accused, who are on bail, attempt to delay the trial by remaining absent, the trial Court should not hesitate to cancel their bail after due notice to them. The case of the petitioner Purshottam alias Babli stands on a different footing. He was under employment in Ajmer Colour Lab and he did the work of development/ printing of photographs under directions/ instructions of his master. Not only this he was removed from service in May-June, 1991 by the proprietors/partners of the aforesaid firm. There is also evidence on the record that he was assaulted by other co-accused when they apprehended that he might be in possession of some photographs. The contention of Mr. Kapoor may have some merit that this accused had provided four photographs on the basis of which the scandal was brought in the light. He is in jail for last twenty months or so. Thus, taking the totality of the circumstances I think it proper to release him on bail on certain conditions.It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Pusoshottam alias Babli shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bound in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty thousand) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. Thus, taking the totality of the circumstances I think it proper to release him on bail on certain conditions.It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Pusoshottam alias Babli shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bound in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty thousand) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance in that Court or any other court on all subsequent dates of hearing or as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial in the case. The bail shall be subject to the following conditions : (i) that he shall not leave the State of Rajasthan, without prior permission of the trial Court; (ii) that he will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses; (iii) that he will provide full co-operation in the trial by remaining present on all dates of hearing. If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, it shall be open to the trial Court to cancel his bail in accordance with law without making arty reference to this Court.All the bail applications are disposed of, as indicated above.Bail Granted to Purshottam and Refused to others. *******