Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 294 (UTT)

Kiran v. State of Uttarakhand

2021-06-07

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.357 of 2019, registered with Police Station S.I.D.C.U.L, District Haridwar for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. According to the FIR dated 14.10.2019, in the scholarship scam, the informant Sub-Inspector Lalita Chufal was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After inquiry, the informant lodged an FIR against owner of Manav Bharti, Viswa Vidhyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is submitted. 3. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.S. Rathore, the learned AGA for the State through video conferencing. 4. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent lady; she has been falsely implicated; she is Vice-President of Kiran Institute of Management and Technology at Tansipur, PS Manglore, District Haridwar; the said Institute is affiliated from Manav Bharti, Viswa Vidhyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh; according to the charge-sheet, the allegations against the applicant are that her Institute had received a sum of Rs.16,69,300/-, for the academic year 2011-12, which was embezzled by the present applicant with her husband, President of the said Institute. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said allegations are false. The Institute-in-question received a sum of Rs.16,69,300/- for the academic year 2011-12 and out of the said amount, Rs.6,80,000/- were disbursed to the concerned students as their scholarship and a rest of the amount was utilized by the Institute as its fee. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed a copy of the bank account to support the said submissions. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that after availing the sufficient opportunity, the State did not file any objection against the said bank account. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; she has no criminal history; she is in custody since 15.03.2020; charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the applicant has no criminal history. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the applicant has no criminal history. 6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :- i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and she shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon her, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.