Godman Rampal to remain in jail as Hisar court denies bail

A Hisar district court today rejected the bail plea of self-styled godman Rampal, who has been lodged in jail since November 2014, in a sedition case pending against him.

The 2014 Barwala sedition case

The sedition case against Rampal stems from FIR No. 428, registered on November 18, 2014, at Barwala police station in Hisar district.

Police had gone to execute non-bailable warrants issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Satlok Ashram, Barwala.

They were met with armed resistance, with hundreds of women and children stationed at the gates — some allegedly armed with firearms and petrol bombs.

The violent clashes led to injuries to police and civilians, damage to public property, and six deaths.

Rampal and his followers were booked under multiple laws, including IPC, UAPA, Explosive Substances Act, PDPP Act, and Arms Act, on charges of sedition, waging war against the State, attempt to murder, and unlawful assembly.

Dismissing the plea, Additional Sessions Judge Parminder Kaur held that Rampal’s detention cannot be termed unconstitutional on grounds of delay. The court said the offences alleged were “grave, serious and strike at the authority of law” and warned that his release would disrupt public order, impede trial and threaten the administration of justice.

Recalling the events that led to the registration of the case, the court observed, “Rampal’s ashram was converted into a veritable fortress to thwart the majesty of law, and the state machinery had to mobilise extraordinary resources to regain control. Such conduct strikes at the very root of the rule of law and constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of courts.”

The judge further noted: “What looms larger in this case is the apprehension, not speculative but grounded in repeated past experience that the release of the applicant would seriously imperil public order and thwart the course of justice. Even during virtual production, large congregations of his followers assemble outside merely to have a glimpse of the premises.”

The court pointed to the extraordinary number of vakalatnamas filed by advocates, including women lawyers, apparently to secure an appearance during Rampal’s hearings. “The inflow has been so extraordinary that the court was constrained to restrict appearances by preparing a list of authorised counsel. This phenomenon itself reflects the extraordinary popularity enjoyed by the applicant. It is not difficult to imagine the magnitude of disruption that would follow if he were to be released on bail,” the order stated.

Making a strong observation on cult leaders, the judge said, “In a democracy founded on secular ideals and the rule of law, no self-styled spiritual figure can be permitted to whitewash the minds of followers to such an extent as to paralyse the administration of justice. History has repeatedly shown, including in the case of Ram Rahim, that where the majesty of law is sought to be overshadowed by cult personalities, the courts have been compelled to keep their foot down with unflinching resolve.”

The court held Rampal responsible for defying high court orders in 2014, saying “the colossal destruction of public property and the tragic loss of six precious human lives could have been averted” had he submitted peacefully.

Concluding, the order read: “The balance of considerations tilts decisively against the grant of bail.”