The arrest of Swami Chinmayanand by the Special Investigation Team raised hope that the victim will finally get justice but the arrest of three youths, including two cousins of the girl, and also naming her in the extortion case, raised suspicion of the family that the investigating agency is trying to put pressure on them for a “compromise” so that the former Union minister comes out clean of all charges.

Surprisingly, despite Supreme Court’s clear direction that the identity of the victim must be concealed, the Uttar Pradesh Police in their press note released after the arrest of Chinmayanand, also mentioned the names of four persons accused of extortion attempt, including the girl’s name though it was mentioned as ‘Ms A’. But her father’s name and her address were clearly mentioned, revealing her identity.

“We were already being pressurised by the Swami’s henchmen (to withdraw the charges) and now the arrest of two members of our family along with one key witness in the case and also naming the victim for extortion seems to be a calculated move of the SIT to further put pressure on us to go for a compromise or they would also face jail for several years,” said a relative who do not want his name to be mentioned fearing his arrest.

It may be mentioned here that three accused arrested in the extortion report filed by Swami Chinmayanand are Sanjay Singh, Sachin Sengar and Vikram. The girl’s three friends have been charged with extortion, criminal intimidation, concealing evidence, and common intention.

According to the SIT, the girl contacted one of the three people arrested for extortion at least 4,200 times last year. Police said her involvement in the case was being investigated.

The kin further claimed that Swami Chinmayanand was arrested under the pressure of the media which showed clippings of the girl massaging the Swami, exposing how he sexually exploited the girl students of his college. However, the victim’s kin questioned the intentions of the SIT team, saying that when the statement of the girl was already recorded before a magistrate, it was surprising that the investigating team did not include the rape charges against the Swami and booked him under the IPC sections 376 (C) (a person in the position of fiduciary seducing a woman for sexual intercourse not amounting to rape), 354 (d) (stalking), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 506 (criminal intimidation).