Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 400 (UTT)

Anil Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

2021-09-01

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 407 of 2019, registered with Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. 2. In the scholarship scam, vide letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) was constituted. The informant, Mr. Rajendra Singh Kholia, Sub-Inspector, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After enquiry, Mr. Rajendra Singh Kholia, Sub-Inspector, lodged an FIR on 18.11.2019 against the owner/chairman of Krishna College of Law, Kamalpur, Chhutmalpur, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh and Krishna College of Management, Kamalpur, Chhutmalpur, District Saharanpur, U.P. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is filed. According to the charge-sheet, Social Welfare Department had deposited Rs. 19,26,810/- scholarship amounts in the bank accounts of 82 concerned students. 3. Heard Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State. 4. Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was the owner/chairman of the concerned Institutes; total 82 students of the members of the Scheduled Castes were enrolled in his Institutes and Rs. 19,26,810/- of the scholarship amount was deposited in the bank accounts of the concerned students and only tuition fee were transferred from the bank accounts of the concerned students to the bank accounts of the Institutes-in-question. In support of these submissions, the documents, regarding the enrollment of the said students are filed. The learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 25.01.2020 and the applicant has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two other matters. He further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence and the applicant undertakes that he will deposit Rs. 5 lakh with the concerned Social Welfare Department within three weeks from the date of his release on bail. 5. He further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence and the applicant undertakes that he will deposit Rs. 5 lakh with the concerned Social Welfare Department within three weeks from the date of his release on bail. 5. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that out of 82 students, the statements of 31 students are recorded during the investigation and according to these 31 alleged students, these students did not take admission in the said Institutes. However, Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly admitted that according to the documents, filed by the applicant, all 82 students were enrolled in these two Institutes-in-question. He further submitted that at this stage, it is not clear that how much scholarship amount has been embezzled in this matter. 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 Anil Saini 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. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. 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.