Ashwani Tandon vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This Second Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.357 of 2019, registered with Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B & 34 of I.P.C. The First Bail Application was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.01.2022.

According to the First Information Report dated 14.10.2019, in the scholarship scam, Sub-Inspector Lalita Chufal was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After inquiry, the informant Sub-Inspector Lalita Chufal lodged an F.I.R. against the owner of Manav Bharti University, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant.

Heard Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant was the owner of Hemlata College of Engineering and Education Behdadi, NH 58, Rajputana; the Registrar of Manav Bharti University had issued an authority letter dated 01.09.2010, and according to the said authority letter, the applicant was authorized to act as “Admission and Information Officer” on behalf of Manav Bharti University; according to the charge-sheet, the allegations against the applicant are that he received a sum of Rs.17,19,300/-(Seventeen lakhs nineteen thousand three hundred) as scholarship amount through the Bank Account of the Admission and Information Officer, operated by the applicant. He further submitted that out of the said amount, Rs.72,600/-(Rupees seventy-two thousand six hundred) was scholarship amount and these scholarship amount were disbursed amongst the concerned students, and, the remaining amount was managed by the applicant as fee. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the copy of the Bank Account of the concerned institute has been filed by the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 25.11.2020 and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.

The said Authorization Letter dated 01.09.2010, issued by the Registrar, Manav Bharti University, as stated by the applicant, is on the record. After availing sufficient opportunity to clarify the said document dated 01.09.2010, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that no clear instructions have been received from the Investigating Officer whether the said letter dated 01.09.2010 was issued by the Registrar, Manav Bharti University.

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 Second Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Ashwani Tandon 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 will attend the trial court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) The applicant will 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.