JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Applicant Km. Manika Sharma has sought her release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.496 of 2018 under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of IPC at P.S. SIDCUL, District Haridwar. 2. It is alleged in the FIR that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted for examining the irregularities in usurping the amount of scholarship by various self financed institutions. It was also found that the institutions usurped the government money by benefiting themselves and have caused wrongful loss to the State exchequer. 3. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that the applicant has been falsely implicated; the concerned institute has disbursed the scholarship in favour of SC/ ST students as per the guidelines; and no government money was embezzled by the petitioner's institution. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that a sum of Rs.8,87,29,360/- (eight crore eighty seven lakh twenty nine thousand three hundred sixty only) was released in favour of the concerned institute but no amount was released in favour of the students, for whom it was sanctioned. He also argued that considering the gravity of offence, the applicant does not deserve bail. 5. During the course of hearing of bail application, learned State Counsel also argued that the concerned institute, in the academic session 2012-13 received a sum of Rs.1,20,95,410/-, in 2013-14 Rs.3,50,60,550/- and in 2014-15, an amount of Rs.4,15,73,400, total Rs.8,87,29,360/- was released to the Institute in question. 6. It was further argued by learned State Counsel that the I.O. of the case could record the statements of some of students mentioned in the said list viz. Amarjeet (Sl. No.63), Nitin (Sl. No.28), Jony Kumar (Sl. No.81), Sandeep Kumar (Sl. No.46) and Nathi Ram (Sl. No.346). These students have unequivocally stated in their statements that none of them has received any amount of scholarship from the concerned Institute. 7. That apart, as per Clause 8 of G.O. dated 25th July, 2006, the payment was required to be made either through a ‘payee cheque' or through ‘bank advice' but in the present case, no such amount was transmitted in favour of the students belonging to the minority sections. 8. The applicant being the head of institution was responsible for payment of scholarship money to the students belonging to the weaker sections. 8. The applicant being the head of institution was responsible for payment of scholarship money to the students belonging to the weaker sections. However, as per the evidence collected during investigation it does not appear that the applicant release the money to those students as per of G.O. dated 25th July, 2006. Moreover, the statements of some of those students were recorded, who have categorically stated that they did not receive any scholarship money. 9. Looking to the gravity of offence, the amount of public money embezzled which was meant for the weaker sections of society (SC/ ST students) and also considering other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. 10. The bail application is, thus, rejected. 11. Needless to observe that the observations, made hereinabove, will not have any affect on the final merits of the trial.