Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 565 (UTT)

Raj Babu Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-08-27

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. 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, 471 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the First Information Report No.14 of 2020 (Criminal Case No.5470 of 2021), registered at police station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. 2. Pursuant to letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team was constituted in the scholarship scam matter. Sub-Inspector Sukhpal Singh was a member of the said Special Investigation Team. The matter was enquired. After enquiry, Sub-Inspector Sukhpal Singh lodged an FIR on 05.02.2020. The First Information Report was registered against Shriram Institute of Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. 3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for State. 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, has contended that the said Institute “Shriram Institute of Technology, Meerut, (Uttar Pradesh)” was run by “Shri Sai Educational Welfare Trust”. The applicant no.1, aged about 76 years, was the Chairman of the said Trust. The applicant no.2, aged about 46 years, was the Treasurer of the Trust. The applicant no.3, aged about 46 years, was the Secretary of the Trust. However, at the time of the disbursement of the scholarship amount, the applicant no.1 was not the Chairman, the applicant no.2 was not the Treasurer and applicant no.3 was not holding the post of the Secretary of the said Trust. Applicants have not misappropriated any amount of scholarship. They were not arrested during the course of the investigation. They were granted relief in a petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the First Information Report. Applicants had fully cooperated with the Investigating Agency during the course of the investigation. The applicants are not previous convicts. They are permanent residents of District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding. The present matter rests on the documentary evidence and all the documentary evidence have been filed by the Investigating Officer along with the charge-sheet, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 5. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally. The present matter rests on the documentary evidence and all the documentary evidence have been filed by the Investigating Officer along with the charge-sheet, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 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 submits on instruction, received from the Investigating Officer, that the Investigating Officer does not want any further 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 applicants –Raj Babu Agarwal, Sachin Agarwal and Pankaj Goyal are directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing their personal bond of Rs.30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:- (i) Applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (ii) Applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court. 8. It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. 9. Anticipatory Bail Application (No.761 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.