Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 640 (UTT)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2021-12-13

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 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.0460 of 2019, registered with Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun for the offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of I.P.C. 2. In the scholarship scam, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. Manjunath T.C. The informant, Aditya Saini, Sub-Inspector, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team. After enquiry, on 13.12.2019, Mr. Aditya Saini, Sub-Inspector, lodged an FIR against the Dehradun Institute of Management and Technology, Dehradun. 3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned AGA for the State. 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is a doctor and is in Government service; he is presently posted at Satyawadi Raja Haris Chandra Hospital, Narela, Delhi; he is also holding the post of Additional Chief Medical Officer at the said Government Hospital; his entire service records are unblemished; he has worked in the best professional manner in fulfilling his duties as a doctor; he is also a philanthropist; the Institute-in-question, namely, Dehradun Institute of Management and Technology is being run by a Trust, namely, “Trust for Educational and Social Reforms”; he joined the said Trust in the year, 2010; apart from him, several Trustees, including his mother and his wife had joined the said Trust as Trustees; the Bank Account No.705420110000112 was opened by his wife for the Institute-in-question; the said account was never opened or operated by the applicant; the applicant was not holding any post in the Institute-in-question; not a single scholarship amount was received by the applicant; the applicant has no criminal history; he is in custody since 21.06.2021 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. He submitted that the said Bank Account No. 705420110000112 was opened by the wife of the applicant for the Institute-in-question and the scholarship amount was embezzled from this account. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. He submitted that the said Bank Account No. 705420110000112 was opened by the wife of the applicant for the Institute-in-question and the scholarship amount was embezzled from this account. However, the learned counsel appearing for the State fairly conceded that the said account was not opened or operated by the present applicant and it is not clear at this stage whether any of the scholarship amount was received by the applicant and if it was received, how much was received. 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 Doctor Manoj Kumar 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. 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.