Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 379 (UTT)

HARI PRAKASH AGARWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2021-07-30

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2021
JUDGMENT Hon'ble 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.42 of 2019, registered with Police Station Bhimtal, District Nainital for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 13(1) (d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. In pursuance to the order dated 04.08.2019 of the Uttarakhand Police Head Quarter, Dehradun as well as in compliance of the directions of this High Court, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 33 of 2019, dated 05.07.2019, an enquiry was conducted in the scholarship scam and upon such enquiry, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Haldwani, nominated the informant Dan Singh Mehta, Sub-Inspector, to initiate the proceeding. After such instruction, an F.I.R. had been lodged by Mr. Dan Singh Mehta on 26.09.2019 alleging therein that the office bearer of Monad University, situated at Hapur, had received Rs. 20,63,900/- towards scholarship amount. The said amount was misappropriated by the Monad University, the Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Hapur and five middlemen. 3. Heard Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at the relevant time, the applicant was posted as Branch Manager in the Hapur Branch of District Cooperative Bank Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh; the Monad University opened the account of its students in the terms of Pradhanmantri Jan Dhan Yojana in his bank as per the rules; the Bank was given debit authority letter for post matrix reimbursement for the purpose of transfer of amount from the accounts of Monad University; every authority letter had the signature of the account holder student; the applicant and his subordinate matched and verified the signature of the account holder and after verification the amount was transferred from the accounts of the students to the accounts of Monad University; the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he is neither the beneficiary of the said scheme nor any amount has been received or transferred in his account; the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 20,63,900/- has already been transferred by the Monad University to the account of the District Social Welfare Department, Nainital; the applicant, aged about 62 years, has no criminal history; he is in custody since 31.05.2021; the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court; charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 5. Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant accepted the incomplete R.T.G.S. forms and transferred money to the account of Monad University. However, he fairly conceded that it is not clear at this stage that any of the scholarship amount was received by the applicant, and, if it was received, how much was received. He also accepted the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that the disputed amount of Rs. 20,63,900/- has been deposited with the District Social Welfare Department, Nainital and 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 merit 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 Hari Prakash Agarwal be released on bail on his 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 he 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. 10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.