Harish Nath Goswami 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.402 of 2020, registered with Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C. 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 order of this High Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.33 of 2019, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the State Government. Mr. Bhim Bhaskar Arya, Inspector, was a member of the said SIT. After enquiry, Mr. Bhim Bhaskar Arya, Inspector, lodged an FIR on 28.11.2020.

Heard Ms. Sukhwani Singh, the learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Ms. Sukhwani Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that at the relevant point of time, the applicant was Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Kashipur; his duty was to verify the list of the concerned students, received from the then District Social Welfare Officer; he had verified the said list in accordance with law; the then District Social Welfare Officer had disbursed the scholarship amount; there was no fault of the applicant in disbursement of the scholarship; the applicant is in custody since 26.08.2021; the applicant has retired from his service on 30.04.2021; he is a permanent resident of District Nainital 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 for the State, opposed the bail application and submitted that the State has suffered a loss due to the wrong verification of the applicant. He further submitted that it is not clear at this stage whether the applicant had received any scholarship amount for himself, 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 merits 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-Harish Nath Goswami 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.