Dinesh Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Apprehending his arrest, the applicant Dinesh Chauhan has filed this anticipatory bail application in connection with the First Information Report No. 0027 of 2020, registered with Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 420, 408, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

Heard Ms. Sheetal Selwal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Balvindra Singh, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence; he has been implicated in this matter; his name has come in the light of the statement of a co-accused surjeet Singh; the applicant was not beneficiary of the scholarship scheme; he had not received any amount of scholarship; he had not misused any amount of the scholarship.

The learned counsel for the State submitted that the applicant is a middle man. However, he submitted that no evidence has been found so far against this applicant to the effect that the applicant had taken any amount of scholarship. He further submitted that the name of the applicant came into light on the sole statement of a co-accused Surjeet Singh.

The scheme of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is introduced by the State of Uttarakhand vide Act No.22/2020. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:-

(1), Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely :-

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation ;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of anv cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:

Provided that where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.

(2) Where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, considers it expedient to issue an interim order to grant anticipatory bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall indicate therein the date, on which the application for grant of anticipatory bail shall be finally heard for passing an order thereon, as the Court may deem fit, and if the Court passes any order granting anticipatory bail, such order shall include inter alia the following conditions, namely:-

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

(iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437. as if the bail were granted under that section.

Explanation: the final order made on an application for direction under sub- section (1); shall not be construed as an interlocutory order for the purpose of this Code.

(3) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (l), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together, with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court.

(4) On the date indicated in the interim order under sub-section (2), the Court shall hear the Public Prosecutor and the applicant and after due consideration of their contentions, it may either confirm, modify or cancel the interim order.

(5) The High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be, shall finally dispose of an application for grant of anticipatory bail under sub-section (l), within thirty days of the date of such application;

(6) Provisions of this section shall not be applicable,-

(a) to the offences arising out of, -

(i) the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967;

(ii) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;

(iii) the Official Secrets Act, 1923;

(iv) the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986;) Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002

(v) sub-section(3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code;

(vi) chapter 6 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, viz, offences against the state (except Section 129);

(vii) The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012;

(b) in the offences, in which death sentence may be awarded.

(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session.

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.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this court directs that in the event of arrest, the applicant–accused Dinesh Chauhan shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with two reliable sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority 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 the case.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

The Anticipatory Bail Application No.246 of 2021 is disposed of accordingly.