JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. The present Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the First Information Report No. 367 of 2019 (Criminal Case No. 2129 of 2020), registered at police station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. 2. The case of the respondent is that pursuant to the letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Principal Secretary, Home of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team was constituted in the scholarship scam matter. Sub-Inspector Rajendra Singh Kholiya was appointed a member of the said Special Investigation Team. The matter was enquired. After enquiry, Mr. Rajendra Singh Kholiya, Sub-Inspector, lodged an FIR on 21.10.2019. The First Information Report was registered against the owner and director of the Millennium Institute of Technology. 3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for State. 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, has contended that the “Millennium Institute of Technology” was run by a Society named “Society for Research and Technical Studies”. The present applicant was the President of the said Society. The applicant, aged about 58 years, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The scholarship amounts were received by the concerned students. Applicant has not received any amount of scholarship. He has not misappropriated any amount of scholarship. He was not arrested during the course of the investigation. He was granted relief in the petition filed by him for quashing the First Information Report. He cooperated fully in the investigation. He is not a previous convict. He is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. The present matter rests on the documentary evidence and all the relevant documents have been submitted by the Investigating Officer along with the charge-sheet. 5. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally. However, he submitted that the Investigating Officer does not want custodial interrogation of the applicant. 6. 5. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally. However, he submitted that the Investigating Officer does not want custodial interrogation of the applicant. 6. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant –Sanjeev Kumar Arora is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions: (i) Applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court. 8. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. 9. Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 734 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.