Hisar Court Denies Sixth Bail Application in 2014 Satlok Ashram Violence Case
In a significant legal development, the Additional Sessions Court in Hisar has firmly rejected the sixth bail application submitted by Sanjay, also known as Fauji, a key accused in the violent 2014 Satlok Ashram clashes. Presiding Judge Dr. Gagandeep Mittal dismissed the plea, emphasizing the severe nature of the allegations, the accused's past conduct, and the repeated failures of his previous bail attempts.
Gravity of Charges and Judicial Reasoning
The court underscored that Sanjay faces trial under extremely serious charges, including provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), attempt to murder, sedition-related offences, and the use of explosives. Judge Mittal observed that no substantial change in circumstances justified granting bail, noting that the accused had been a proclaimed offender and remained absconding for over seven years before his arrest in July 2022.
The court explicitly stated: "In view of the gravity of allegations, previous rejections and overall facts, this court is not inclined to grant bail." This decision highlights the judiciary's stringent stance in cases involving national security and violent crimes.
Background of the Satlok Ashram Violence
The case originates from violent clashes that erupted in November 2014 at the Satlok Ashram in Barwala, Hisar district. The turmoil began when police attempted to execute arrest warrants against self-styled godman Rampal. According to prosecution accounts, thousands of his followers allegedly resisted the police action, leading to large-scale violence involving stone-pelting, firing, and petrol bombs.
More than 1,000 individuals, including numerous police personnel, were reportedly injured during the incident. The prosecution has consistently alleged that Sanjay alias Fauji played a pivotal and active role in orchestrating the attack and providing training to those involved in the violence.
Defense Arguments and Court's Rebuttal
During the hearing, the defense counsel argued for bail based on changed circumstances, pointing out that 49 key witnesses had already been examined and that co-accused Rampal had been granted bail. However, the court firmly rejected these arguments.
The court clarified that the principle of parity does not apply here, as the roles, conduct, and circumstances of Sanjay are distinctly different from those of Rampal. Furthermore, Judge Mittal emphasized that mere examination of witnesses or prolonged incarceration cannot serve as sole grounds for bail in cases involving such grave offences.
History of Bail Applications and Ongoing Trial
This rejection marks the sixth unsuccessful bail attempt by Sanjay. His previous five applications were either dismissed or withdrawn, with rejections recorded by both the sessions court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court took this history into account, viewing it as indicative of the accused's persistent efforts to evade trial despite the serious charges.
The trial in the Satlok Ashram violence case continues, with the court maintaining a firm stance against granting bail to individuals accused of orchestrating large-scale violence and threatening public order. This decision reinforces the legal principle that bail is not a right but a discretion exercised cautiously in cases involving severe allegations against the state and society.
