Kamaljeet Singh 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.0038 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and

120B of I.P.C.

According to the FIR dated 11.03.2020, in the scholarship scam, in compliance with the order, passed by this High Court in Writ Petition (PIL)

No.33 of 2019, Inspector Bheem Bhaskar, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After inquiry, the informant Sri

Bheem Bhashkar, Inspector, lodged an FIR against owner, manager, officers and employees of Dr. B.N.C.P.E. of Physical Education, Yavatmal,

Maharasthra and two co-accused middlemen.

Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. P.S.

Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated; he is not named in the F.I.R.;

he was not the beneficiary of the said scheme; he has not received any scholarship amount; the applicant is in custody since 14.10.2020; he is a

resident of District Udham Singh Nagar; 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 orally. However, he submitted that the instructions have been received from the

Investigation Officer and according to the instructions, 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 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.