Conspirator Tries to Maliciously Keep His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda in Jail to Murder Him🔗

Co-conspirators Arathi Rao and Lenin Karuppan pushed for cancellation of the bail of His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda. They shared a good 'relationship' with the CID and the clear joint plan was to somehow get His Divine Holiness back inside the prison where under the full control of the CID, (which could escape after committing any heinous crime, as seen in the case of the 'leaked interrogation footage') His Divine Holiness could be even administered poison and silently assassinated.

The false complainant Lenin went to Court claiming that Paramahamsa Nithyananda was intimidating witnesses, and hence his bail should be cancelled!

Hon’ble High of Karnataka through the below court order, clearly explained why there are “No reasons much less overwhelming reasons for cancellation of the bail” (See red highlights for the essence)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2011

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N KESHAVANARAYANA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2458 & 2459 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

(BY SRI. C. H. JADHAV, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

IN CRL. P. NO. 2458/11

A N D:

(BY SRI. C. V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE)

common order dated 11.06.2010 granting bail to the

respondents herein subject to conditions. Two

important conditions imposed in the said order were: (i)

They shall mark their attendance once in 15 days before

the jurisdictional police; (ii) They shall not tamper with

the prosecution witnesses or material evidence.

Pursuant to the said order, the respondents were

released from custody on their furnishing necessary

sureties before the jurisdictional Court. Complaining

violation of the conditions imposed in the order of this

Court, the State has presented these petitions seeking

cancellation of bail granted to the respondents. The

ground on which the State has sought for cancellation

of the bail are that, the respondents through their

followers have intimidated and threatened the original

complainant by filing several false complaints against

him before JMFC at Ramanagar. It is also alleged that

Accused No.1 had interfered with the course of

investigation by preventing the Investigating Officer

from taking the specimen signature of one of the

by the State for cancellation of bail. As noticed supra, the first ground urged for cancellation of bail is that the original complainant is being intimidated and threatened by filling frivolous and false complaints by the disciples of Accused No. 1 and thereby, Accused No. 1 has tampered the prosecution witnesses. It is pertinent to note that the basis for urging these grounds is the fact of filing several complaints by persons who are stated to be disciples of Accused No. 1. It is also pertinent to note that in these petitions, the original complainant has not filed affidavit complaining that he is being intimidated or threatened by any of the accused persons or any of his devotees or disciples. Of course, the documents produced along with these petitions prima facie indicates that, certain complaints have been filed against the original complainant by some persons. According to the contents of those complaints, the complainants are devotees or disciples of Accused No. 1. It is the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the allegations made in the complaints 10

are all false and frivolous and it is only with a view to intimidate the original complainant, these false complaints have been filed. It is pertinent to note that, on presentation of all these complaints, the learned Magistrate has referred them for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is reported that after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed 'B' summary report and each of the complainants have filed protest petitions and those protest petitions are pending. It is submitted that in one case, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, which act has been questioned by the original complainant in the present case by presenting petition before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Merely because the complainants in these complaints are stated to be either the devotees or disciples of Accused No.1, it cannot be presumed or inferred that those complaints have been filed at the instance of Accused No.1 with a view to intimidate the person named as accused in those complaints. It is not for this Court in these proceedings 13

of the allegations made in the private complaint is also-

required to be considered by the jurisdictional Court.

Having regard to these developments, it cannot be said

that the respondents have tried to interfere in the

investigation.

8) It is also nextly contended that the

respondents have managed to file Civil suits in

Cybarabad, thereby have interfered in the investigation

and progress of the matter. If the aggrieved persons, in

order to protect their civil rights over property,

institutes civil suits, it cannot be said that they have

tried to interfere with the investigation or progress of

the matter. In fact, the civil suit filed before the Court

of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cybarabad at

Rajendranagar in O.S. No.99/2010 has been decreed

and the defendants therein have filed a suit for

declaration for cancellation of the gift deed. Thus, the

filing of a civil suit cannot be a basis to hold that the

respondents have in any way interfered in the

investigation of the case or progress of the matter. 14

9) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason much less overwhelming reasons for cancellation of the bail granted to these respondents. In this view of the matter, these petitions are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

TRUE COPY

18/8/24

[?] date an which the applicant is required to appear as in order... 25/8/4

[?] The date on which copy is delivered to 18/8/24 [?] [?]

[?] date on which charges and additionai charges if any are called for [?] The date on which charges and additional charges if any are supplied [?] The date on which the copy is ready 18/8/24 [?] The date of notifying that the copy is ready 18/8/24

18 April 2012