Anurag Shankhdhar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

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.404 of 2019, registered with Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In the scholarship scam, in compliance of the letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team was constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. Kamal Kumar Lunthi, Sub-Inspector. After enquiry, Mr. Kamal Kumar Lunthi, Sub-Inspector, lodged an FIR on 18.11.2019 against the owner/manager of Swami Vivekanand Polytechnic, Manduwala, Post Khujnawar, Fatehpur, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that at the relevant point of time, the applicant was the District Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar; he was not named in the FIR; the matter in dispute pertains to the year 2012-13 and 2014-15; the Institute-in-question was situated outside of the State of Uttarakhand and there was no provision prior to 15.07.2015 for getting the physical verification of the concerned students; however, the applicant had verified the applications of the concerned students and after verification, the scholarship were disbursed in accordance with law; the applicant is a resident of District Haridwar; he is in custody since 18.09.2021 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General, has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant had violated the Government order dated 25.07.2006. However, he conceded that no departmental enquiry has been initiated against the applicant. He further submitted that 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.

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.

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.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Anurag Shankhdhar 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;

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.