Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 641 (UTT)

Abhishek Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-11-24

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Alok Kumar Verma, J.) Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with the Case Crime No. 60 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No. 17of 2023), registered at police station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. In the scholarship scam matter, a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T) was constituted in compliance with the order of this High Court. Mr. N.N. Pant, Inspector, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team. After inquiry, the informant lodged an FIR against the co-accused persons. The said FIR was registered on 11.03.2020. Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and perused the relevant records of the Institute-in-question. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and co-accused persons. 3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Applicant was not arrested during the investigation. He was granted protection by this Court. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, custodial interrogation is not needed, and, co-accused persons have been granted bail. However, he has conceded that the scholarship amounts of six students were not returned to the concerned students. 5. Opposing the Anticipatory Bail Application, Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State, contended that the present applicant was a Director/Owner as well as an authorized signatory of the bank accounts of the Institute-in-question. In the present scholarship scam matter, an amount of Rs. 10,65,900/- has been found to have been embezzled. 6. Mr. Rakesh Negi, Advocate, further contended that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation is not required. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in ‘X’ Versus Arun Kumar C.K. and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870. 7. 10,65,900/- has been found to have been embezzled. 6. Mr. Rakesh Negi, Advocate, further contended that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation is not required. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in ‘X’ Versus Arun Kumar C.K. and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870. 7. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. 8. In Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 2017 (2) CCSC 876 (SC), it has been observed that filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation, the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused person. 9. The State of Uttarakhand had issued Government Orders, whereby the process of scholarship had been fixed to be given by the Department of Social Welfare to the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Minority Classes. These scholarships are given to encourage the parents from these Classes to send their wards to schools and colleges, and to ensure that education is not denied due to the poor financial condition of their families. The object of this scholarship scheme is to support the parents of these Classes for educating their wards. 10. In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2014 (1) CCSC 120, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed unfortunately, in the last few year, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure. In controvertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. 11. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2014 (1) CCSC 120, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed unfortunately, in the last few year, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure. In controvertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. 11. In Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018)16 SCC 299 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the cancer of corruption has, as we all know, eaten into the vital organs of the State. Cancer is a dreaded disease which, if not nipped in the bud in time, causes death. 12. In the case of Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and another, 2012 (2) CCSC 588 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 13. Being an extra-ordinary remedy, it should be resorted to only in a special case. The liberty of an individual is not absolute. The emphasis on individual liberty cannot be extended to such an extent that it creates disorder and anarchy in the society. It is also well settled principle that each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario. The present applicant has conceded that the scholarship amounts of six students were not returned to the concerned students. The evidence, collected during the investigation, prima facie indicates involvement of the present applicant in the offence. Applicant has not established any special circumstance. No reason is found to falsely implicate the present applicant. 14. Therefore, looking into the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application has no merit and is liable to be rejected. 15. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to facts provided by the parties at this stage. The said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.