Krishan Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

A case R.C. No. 0962019A0002, was registered on 7.5.2019 by the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI) under Sections 409,

419, 465, 466, 471 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Sections 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act at Police Station East Shimla. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 16.02.2021.

A bail petition preferred by the petitioner under Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by learned Special Judge (CBI),

Shimla on 31.03.2021. Cr. M.P.(M) no. 654 of 2021 filed by him before this Court was withdrawn on 22.04.2021 with liberty to move afresh.

Subsequently petitioner moved Ld. Special Judge (CBI) Shimla for grant of default bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. On coming to know that time

limit for presenting the chargesheet for the offences under the FIR is 90 days, the bail application was withdrawn on 27.4.2021. Through instant

petition, petitioner seeks his release on regular bail.

Gist of Allegations

The aforementioned case is in respect of alleged misappropriation of government scholarship funds on large scale with complicity of officials working

in the Education department, Central Government, Banks and private institutions.

2(i). An FIR No.133 of 2018 was registered on 16.11.2018 at Police Station East, Shimla. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made

by the State Project Officer, State Project Monitoring and New Initiative Unit, Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. It was

alleged in the FIR that various complaints were received in the Education Department regarding non-receipt of scholarships by the students under the

State and Centrally Sponsored Schemes for SC/ST/OBC/MC students. Preliminary inquiry conducted by the State Project Officer revealed mis-

appropriation of scholarship funds on large scale with complicity of officials working in the Education Department, Central Government, Banks and

Private Institutions. It was further alleged in the FIR that income/caste certificates of students were not verified and did not appear to be genuine.

Through single application, disbursement of scholarships under two different categories of SC & ST also came to light. Many loopholes were detected

in ‘hp-e-pass’ software used by the State Education Department, whereby the same mobile and bank account numbers were accepted for more

than one application. Applications for scholarships were accepted without regard to any Aadhar number. Instructions issued by the Central

Government for disbursing the scholarships through smart cards were not adhered to by the officials of the Education Department. Verification of

scholarship applications was not carried out by the concerned Education Department officials. It was further alleged that the private educational

institutions had opened bank accounts of the students near their institutes. Some of the bank accounts in Chandigarh and Haryana were alleged to be

dubious. 80% of total scholarship money disbursed was granted through private educational institutions.

2(ii). Pursuant to notification dated 20.03.2019, the FIR dated 16.11.2018 was entrusted to CBI and case RC0962019A0002 was registered on

07.05.2019 at CBI, ACB, Shimla under Sections 409, 419, 465, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. After entrustment of

FIR, CBI carried out investigations. Noticing the complicity of public servants of Directorate of Higher Education, Bank Officials and Officials of the

private educational institutions, Section 120-B of IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were

added in the case. CBI conducted searches of 22 private institutions, which had disbursed the scholarships, w.e.f. 13.05.2019 to 16.05.2019 at 22

locations in the States of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh. Following table gives the macro view of post-matric

scholarship funds alleged to have been illegally siphoned off through private institutions:-

26 institutions were taken up for investigation by the CBI on the basis of their scholarship claims.

2(iii) Charge sheet for misappropriation of scholarship funds amounting to Rs. 13.19 crore in respect of K.C. Group of institutions Pandoga, District

Una was filed before the Court of Special Judge CBI, Shimla on 30.03.2020 by keeping the investigations open under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

Second charge sheet was filed on 30.12.2020 in respect of K.C. Group of institution at Nawanshehar, Punjab for misappropriation of scholarship fund

of Rs. 11.33 crore.

2(iv) As per the status report, during investigations, it came out that nine institutes i.e. ASAMS Education Group Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. ;

NIELIT Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. ; SDS Education Group Una, District Una, H.P. ; NIELIT Una, District Una, H.P. ; Skill Development Society

Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. ; NIELIT Centre Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. ; ASAMS Education Group Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. ;

NIELIT Centre Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. ; ITI Badukhar, District Kangra, H.P. had sent scholarship claims to the tune of Rs. 29.80 crores to the

Directorate of Higher Education, Shimla. The amount was transferred by Directorate of Higher Education Shimla to the accounts of non bonafide

students on the basis of forged and fake documents submitted by these institutions. The scholarship amount was thereafter got transferred by the

Directors of these institutions from the accounts of the students to the accounts of ASA Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in which, Smt. Babita Rajta,

Krishan Kumar and Rajdeep Singh- the present petitioner were partners of 33.33% shares.

Alleged role of petitioner :-

3(i) The aforesaid nine institutes are not registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. These institutes were opened without any infrastructure

or affiliation from any University or State/Central Government department. Scholarship funds could not have been released to such institutions.

Despite this, an amount of Rs. 29.80 crores was released by officials of State Education Department to these institutions as scholarship amount during

the period 2013-2014 to 2015-2016.

For claiming this scholarship amount of Rs. 29.80 crore in the name of SC/ST/OBC categories students, these institutes committed the offence of

forgery by submitting the forged and fake documents. The students were allured to take admission in these institutions. Many students after taking

admission, left the institutes, however, their documents were illegally used by the institutes to claim scholarship funds. Accounts were opened in the

banks without the consent and knowledge of students. The scholarship amount deposited in these accounts was eventually transferred to the accounts

of a Shell Company-ASA Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd./Skill Development Society without any debit authority. The nine institutes, mentioned above,

were being controlled by this Shell Company i.e. ASA Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Company was created on papers, only to route the

scholarship funds. The present petitioner holds 33.33% shares in the Shell Company. The other partners, viz Smt. Babita Rajta and Mr. Rajdeep Singh,

also hold 33% shares each in the Shell Company.

3(ii) From the accounts of Shell Company, maintained in Allahabad/Indian Bank, Solan, an amount of Rs. 36 lacs was transferred in the name of

Devender Singh Chauhan, who is a partner of Avinash Rajta-brother of husband of Smt. Babita Rajta in a liquor Company. From the same account of

Shell Company, an amount of Rs. 63 lacs was been transferred in the name of Ashok Thakur, a partner of Avinash Rajta, brother of husband of Smt.

Babita Rajta, in a liquor Company. Further, from the same account of ASA Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., an amount of Rs. 20 lacs was transferred in

the name of Grand Emporio Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in which Rakesh Kumar-brother-in-law of the husband of Smt. Babita Rajta, is a partner.

An amount of Rs. 1.50 lacs was allegedly paid to one Mangal Singh Negi, the then Branch Manager, Allahabad/Indian Bank Solan on 04.08.2016 vide

cheque signed by Rajeep Singh and Krishan Kumar(petitioner) as reward for opening of accounts and payment of scholarship funds without

enforceable debit authority.

As per the status report, petitioner disclosed that he had paid Rs. 17.90 lacs to partner Smt. Babita Rajta, as her share during the years 2014-2015 and

2015-2016.

Events

4(i) Petitioner was arrested on 16.02.2021. He was remanded to police custody till 22.02.2021. At the instance of CBI, he was sent to judicial custody

on 22.02.2021 where he is lodged till date.

4(ii) Hitesh Gandhi, Vice President of K.C. Group of Institutions, a co-accused in charge-sheet filed by the CBI was arrested on 03.01.2020. He has

been enlarged on regular bail on 24.09.2020 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1162 of 2020. Arvind Rajta-one of the government officials and husband of accused

Babita Rajta, who is the main accused alleged to have released the scholarship funds to different institutions, was arrested on 03.01.2020. He has also

been enlarged on bail on 24.09.2020 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1040 of 2020. One other co-accused Surinder Pal Singh, working as cashier in Central Bank

of India, arrested on 03.01.2020, was enlarged on bail vide order dated 11.06.2020, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 409 of 2020. Smt. Babita Rajta, partner

of present bail petitioner, has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.03.2021, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 369 of 2021. Mangal Singh Negi, the

then Branch Manager Allahabad/Indian Bank has been granted anticipatory bail in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 321 of 2021 vide order dated 1.4.2021.

Submissions

5(i) Learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for release of the petitioner on bail. His precise submissions are that FIR was registered on 16.11.2018.

It was entrusted to CBI on 20.03.2019. As per its own showing , the CBI has to investigate 26 private institutes in all. Even after about two years,

CBI has been able to file charge-sheet only with respect to two institutes i.e. K.C. Group of Institutions Pandoga, District Una and K.C. Group of

Institutions Nawanshehar, Punjab. Pace of investigation in the case is very slow. The CBI is yet to investigate dozens of private institutes. Petitioner

cannot be incarcerated in custody for an uncertain period of time which may traverse to years together.

5(ii) The alleged role of the petitioner is limited only in the capacity of a partner of ASA Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which, allegedly was controlling

the nine institutes. The investigation in respect of these nine institutes is complete. Investigation in respect of ASA Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is

also complete. Under these circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted. On merits also, ld. Counsel refuted the allegations

leveled by the respondents.

5(iii) Petitioner ever since registration of FIR in 2018 has been participating and co operating in the investigation by the CBI. He remained in police

remand from 16.02.2021 to 22.02.2021. It was at the instance of the CBI itself that petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 22.02.2021. This fact

itself is an indication that the investigation vis-a-vis the petitioner is complete.

5(iv) Citing various judgments in support of his prayers for release of the petitioner on bail, learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner has deep roots

in the society and will not flee from justice. He undertakes not to tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses. He will

abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed upon him by this Court and will join investigation as and when the respondent directs him

to do so.

Learned Special Prosecutor for the CBI opposed the bail on the grounds that :-

6(i) Investigation in the FIR is still going on. Around 16 private educational institutes are still to be investigated. No timeline can be given for

completion of the investigation in respect of all the private institutes involved. As of now, investigation into K.C. Group of Institutions at Pandoga,

District Una as well as at Nawanshehar has been completed and charge-sheets regarding these two institutions have already been presented before

the competent Court on 30.03.2020 and 30.12.2020, respectively.

6(ii) The investigation conducted into the nine institutes i.e. ASAMS Eduction Group Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. ; NIELIT Nahan, District Sirmour,

H.P. ; SDS Education Group Una, District Una, H.P. ; NIELIT Una, District Una, H.P. ; Skill Development Society Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. ;

NIELIT Centre Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. ; ASAMS Education Group Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. ; NIELIT Centre Nurpur, District

Kangra, H.P. ; ITI Badukhar, District Kangra, H.P., so far, has practically proved the petitioner alongwith his other two partners to be guilty of grave

socio economic offence as not only financial loss has been caused to the State Government, but the students of weaker section of society have also

been deprived of their legitimate dues. In the event of conviction of the petitioner severe punishment has been prescribed in law.

6(iii) In respect of the nine institutes, mentioned above, the respondent has completed the investigation and chargesheet has been filed on 13.05.2021

by keeping open investigations under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, there is strong apprehension that in case of

enlargement on bail, petitioner will try to win over the witnesses and tamper the prosecution evidence. It was also submitted that the petitioner had

misled the investigating agencies and did not disclose his actual residential address, which could be ascertained by the respondent with great difficulty.

6(iv) During investigation, it also came out that Lovely Professional University had allocated a Service Provider number to ASAMS Education Group

to provide services of sale of prospectus, forms, computer and internet surfing for University website access and books delivery to students. However

ASAMS Education Group was not affiliated by the University to act as its study centre or to provide education through distance education or any

other mode. This group was not authorized by Lovely Professional University to verify H.P. Post Matric Scholarship applications to Directorate of

Higher Education. During investigations, the Assistant Registrar of Lovely Professional University stated that Code was used by ASAMS Education

Group for obtaining scholarship claims in wrong, fake and fraudulent manner by representing itself as authorized/affiliated to the University, which it

was not. Respondent, during investigation, found the affiliation agreement dated 25.05.2003 allegedly executed between ASAMS Education Group

with Lovely Professional University, to be fake and forged document. Some other letters, dated 09.07.2014, 08.08.2014 claiming ASAMS Educational

Group as an authorized learning center of Lovely Professional University was also found to be fake. It is further submitted that the investigation in

these areas is still going on. Matter has reportedly been taken by the respondent with Lovely University regarding verification of 2474 students who

have been shown as its students. Additionally, it is stated that a separate team has been sent for verification of 4118 students who have been shown to

be students of Karnataka State Open University by ASAMS Education Group.

Observations

It is well settled that grant of bail involves judicious exercise of discretionary power of the Court, wherein not only the nature of accusations, severity

of punishment, nature of evidence, apprehension of influencing the witnesses, tampering with evidence, possibility of accused standing the trial are

some of the factors to be considered, but the valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of society in general also have to be balanced.

7(i) In the instant case, FIR was registered on 16.11.2018. Pursuant to Notification dated 20.03.2019, case was entrusted to CBI and was registered

by it on 07.05.2019. The petitioner was arrested on 16.02.2021. He remained in police custody till 22.02.2021. At the instance of CBI, he was sent to

judicial custody on 22.02.2021.

7(ii) 22/26 private institutes were to be investigated by the CBI for unearthing illegal disbursement of post-matric scholarship funds amounting to Rs.

2,09,93,53,223/- by private educational institutions, out of which, at present, investigation into K.C. Group of Institutions, Pandoga, District Una for

misappropriation of scholarship amount of Rs. 13.19 crore and investigation into K.C. Group of Institution Nawanshehar, Punjab for misappropriation

of scholarship amount of Rs. 11.33 crore has been completed. Charge sheets in this regard stands filed before the competent Court on 30.03.2020 and

30.12.2020, respectively.

As per the statement made during the hearing of the case by ld. Special Prosecutor for the respondent, chargesheet withrespect to the illegal

disbursement of scholarship amount to the tune of Rs. 29.80 crores in nine institutions, from where the funds were statedly transferred to the accounts

of ASA Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has also been filed on 13.05.2021 by keeping open the investigation under Section 178(3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

7(iii) Investigation into various other private educational institutions is yet going on. CBI has not been able to indicate any timeline whatsoever about

completion of investigation. It has also taken about an year and ten months for completing the investigation of two private institutions i.e. K.C. Group

of Institution at Pandoga, District Una and K.C. Group of Institution at Nawanshehar, Punjab. It has taken about two years to file the charegesheet in

respect of ASAMS Educational Group, that too by keeping open the investigation under Section 178(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7(iv) Present is not a case where multiple FIRs were registered with respect to different institutes. One FIR has been registered involving all the

private institutions. Accused Hitesh Gandhi, Arvind Rajta and Surinder Singh, arrested on 03.01.2020, have already been enlarged on bail. Smt. Babita

Rajta- partner of the petitioner, arrested on 15.02.2021 has also been enlarged on bail. Mangal Singh Negi has also been granted anticipatory bail. All

of them are facing the same FIR and it has been alleged that all of them alongwith petitioner and others had conspired.

7(v) (1) In (2017) 13 SCC 751, titled State of Bihar and another Versus Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bail

cannot be granted in a mechanical manner to the alleged kingpin of ‘Bihar Toppers Scam’ on the ground that accused was in custody for long

time. Socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in matter of bail.

7(v) (2) Hon’ble Apex Court in (2013) 7 SCC 466, titled Nimmajadda Prasad Versus CBI, while observing that white collar crimes were on the

rise affecting development of the country as a whole, held that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of

evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment on conviction, character of accused, circumstances peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility

of securing presence of accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with, larger interests of public/State and other similar

considerations. At this stage, it is not necessary to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Economic offences need to be viewed seriously.

7(v) (3) In (2013) 7 SCC 439, titled Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, Hon’ble Apex Court held that economic offences need to be visited with

different approach. It was held as under vide paras 34 and 35:-

“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic

offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave

offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of

the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable

possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger

interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.â€​

7(v) (4) In (2018) 11 SCC 46, titled Rohit Tandon Versus Directorate of Enforcement, involving Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 including

Section 45 thereof, which has overriding effect on general provisions of Cr.PC, it was held that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies

and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and are considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a

whole. It was also expounded that at the stage of considering the bail application, it requires to be seen whether the accused had requisite mensrea. A

balance has to be maintained between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail. The duty of Court at this stage is not to weigh

the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.

7(v)(5) It will also be appropriate to take note of (2012) 1 SCC 40, titled Sanjay Chandra Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, wherein Hon’ble

Apex Court dealing with the issue of grant of bail in an economic offence of formidable magnitude, observed that deprivation of liberty must be

considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused would stand trial when called upon and that Courts owe more than verbal

respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. Object of

bail is neither punitive or preventive. Hon’ble Court sounded a caveat that it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of

disapproval of former conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving

him taste of imprisonment as a lesson. Discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial has to be exercised with care and caution by

balancing valuable right of liberty of individual and interest of society in general. Seriousness of charge is no doubt one of the relevant consideration

while examining bail application, but it is not the only factor. The grant or denial of bail is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of

each case. Detention in custody of undertrial prisoner for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held

that it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the constitution that any person should be punished in respect of a matter, on

which he has not been convicted and should be deprived of his liberty only on the belief that he will temper with witnesses if set free save in

extraordinary circumstances. Seriousness of charge is not the only factor to be considered while deciding the bail petitions. Paras 21 to 24, 39 and 46

of the judgment are as under:-

“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the

accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must

be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe

more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly

tried and duly found guilty.

From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship.

From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at

the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty

enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in

any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in

the most extraordinary circumstances.

Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment

before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of

former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving

him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

In the instant case, as we have already noticed that the ""pointing finger of accusation"" against the appellants is `the seriousness of the

charge'. The offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is

possibility of the appellants tampering witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of

the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : The

other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Indian

Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights

but rather ""recalibration of the scales of justice.

Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the Courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds: the primary

ground is that offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involvingdeep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is

caused to the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that the possibility of the accused persons tempering with the witnesses. In the

present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as

genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true

that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears

upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment

should be taken into consideration.

We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact

that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the

investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi.

Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to

the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.â€​

These principles were reiterated in (2017) 5 SCC 218, titled Manoranjana Singh Versus CBI.

7(v)(6) In AIR 2019 SC 5272, titled P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI had opposed the bail plea on the grounds of:- (i) flight

risk; (ii) tampering with evidence; and (iii) influencing witnesses. The first two contentions were rejected by the High Court. But bail was declined on

the ground that possibility of influencing the witnesses in the ongoing investigation cannot be ruled out. Hon’ble Apex Court after considering

(2001) 4 SCC 280, titled Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another; (2004) 7 SCC 528, titled Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and

another; (2005) 2 SCC 13, titled Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu and (2005) 8 SCC 21, titled State of U.P. through CBI v.

Amarmani Tripathi, observed as under:-

“26. As discussed earlier, insofar as the ""flight risk"" and ""tampering with evidence"" are concerned, the High Court held in favour of the

appellant by holding that the appellant is not a ""flight risk"" i.e. ""no possibility of his abscondence"". The High Court rightly held that by

issuing certain directions like ""surrender of passport"", ""issuance of look out notice"", ""flight risk"" can be secured. So far as ""tampering

with evidence"" is concerned, the High Court rightly held that the documents relating to the case are in the custody of the prosecuting

agency, Government of India and the Court and there is no chance of the appellant tampering with evidence.

So far as the allegation of possibility of influencing the witnesses, the High Court referred to the arguments of the learned Solicitor

General which is said to have been a part of a ""sealed cover"" that two material witnesses are alleged to have been approached not to

disclose any information regarding the appellant and his son and the High Court observed that the possibility of influencing the witnesses

by the appellant cannot be ruled out. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court in para (72) reads as under:

As argued by learned Solicitor General, (which is part of 'Sealed Cover', two material witnesses (accused) have been approached for

not to disclose any information regarding the petitioner and his son (co-accused). This court cannot dispute the fact that petitioner has been

a strong Finance Minister and Home Minister and presently, Member of Indian Parliament. He is respectable member of the Bar Association

of Supreme Court of India. He has long standing in BAR as a Senior Advocate. He has deep root in the Indian Society and may be some

connection in abroad. But, the fact that he will not influence the witnesses directly or indirectly, cannot be ruled out in view of above facts.

Moreover, the investigation is at advance stage, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.

FIR was registered by the CBI on 15.05.2017. The appellant was granted interim protection on 31.05.2018 till 20.08.2019. Till the date,

there has been no allegation regarding influencing of any witness by the appellant or his men directly or indirectly. In the number of

remand applications, there was no whisper that any material witness has been approached not to disclose information about the appellant

and his son. It appears that only at the time of opposing the bail and in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI before the High Court, the

averments were made that ""....the appellant is trying to influence the witnesses and if enlarged on bail, would further pressurize the

witnesses...."". CBI has no direct evidence against the appellant regarding the allegation of appellant directly or indirectly influencing the

witnesses. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, no material particulars were produced before the High

Court as to when and how those two material witnesses were approached. There are no details as to the form of approach of those two

witnesses either SMS, email, letter or telephonic calls and the persons who have approached the material witnesses. Details are also not

available as to when, where and how those witnesses were approached.

It is to be pointed out that the respondent - CBI has filed remand applications seeking remand of the appellant on various dates viz.

22.08.2019, 26.08.2019, 30.08.2019, 02.09.2019, 05.09.2019 and 19.09.2019 etc. In these applications, there were no allegations that the

appellant was trying to influence the witnesses and that any material witnesses (accused) have been approached not to disclose information

about the appellant and his son. In the absence of any contemporaneous materials, no weight could be attached to the allegation that the

appellant has been influencing the witnesses by approaching the witnesses. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge ""...that it cannot be

ruled out that the petitioner will not influence the witnesses directly or indirectly....."" is not substantiated by any materials and is only a

generalised apprehension and appears to be speculative. Mere averments that the appellant approached the witnesses and the assertion

that the appellant would further pressurize the witnesses, without any material basis cannot be the reason to deny regular bail to the

appellant; more so, when the appellant has been in custody for nearly two months, co-operated with the investigating agency and the

charge sheet is also filed.

The appellant is not a ""flight risk"" and in view of the conditions imposed, there is no possibility of his abscondence from the trial.

Statement of the prosecution that the appellant has influenced the witnesses and there is likelihood of his further influencing the witnesses

cannot be the ground to deny bail to the appellant particularly, when there is no such whisper in the six remand applications filed by the

prosecution. The charge sheet has been filed against the appellant and other co-accused on 18.10.2019. The appellant is in custody from

21.08.2019 for about two months. The co-accused were already granted bail. The appellant is said to be aged 74 years and is also said to be

suffering from age related health problems. Considering the above factors and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the

appellant is entitled to be granted bail.â€​

7(v)(7) In 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1549, titled P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, after taking note of various precedents, it was deduced

that basic jurisprudence relating to a bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the

accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. Irrespective of nature and gravity of charge, the ultimate consideration will have to be on case to

case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of accused to stand trial. Para 23 of the judgment reads as under:-

“23. Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this

Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and

refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the

gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be

gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases

of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of “grave offence†and in such

circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the

nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence

that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a

factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in

perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since

there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the

underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for

either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case

basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.â€​

7(vi) It has come in the status report that the respondent has conducted searches and seized material and record from 22/26 private institutions,

including the institutes involving the petitioner. As is evident from the record, it has been the stand of the respondent-CBI from the very beginning i.e.

from September, 2020 onwards if not earlier that the petitioner alongwith his other two partners was involved in illegal claims of scholarship amount by

9 fake institutes, which received government scholarship funds to the tune of Rs. 29.80 crores. It is not in dispute that petitioner had joined the

investigation. He was arrested on 16.02.2021 and remanded to police custody. It was at the instance of the CBI that he was sent to judicial custody on

22.02.2021. The fact itself leads to an inference that investigation required to be carried out from him has been completed. Admittedly, no application

was thereafter moved by the CBI seeking his police remand. During hearing of the case, it was stated that chargesheet in respect of these 9 institutes

mentioned in para supra as well as in respect of alleged Shell Company, has been filed on 13.05.2021 by leaving open the investigations under Section

178(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been alleged that petitioner, a partner of ASAMS Education Group, has been found to be involved in

certain other illegalities concerning Lovely Professional University and Karnataka State Open University. As per status report, the respondent has

taken up the matter regarding verification of 2474 students shown to be of Lovely Professional University and 4118 students shown of Karnataka

State Open University in respect of alleged fraud by the ASAMS Education Group. These aspects on merits have been disputed on behalf of the

petitioner.

7(vii) Even if present is a case of socio-economic offence of serious magnitude and respondent may have strong evidence about involvement of the

petitioner, yet ‘gravity can only beget length of sentence’ provided in law, after the trial. Grant of bail cannot be thwarted merely by asserting

that offence is grave and therefore, petitioner should remain in custody till the investigation of all the private educational institutes is completed,

regarding timeline of which, respondent apparently has no clue. As informed during hearing of the case, the Chargesheet w.r.t. institutes involving the

petitioner has been filed on 13.5.2021 by keeping open the investigations under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Even in cases involving economic offences, where there is strong, prima facie, evidence against the accused, it cannot be said by way of an abstract

principle that bail should invariably be refused. It is impossible to hold that an accused should never be granted bail during pendency of whole of

investigation.

The principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra’s case, supra, and in various other pronouncements cannot be lost sight of

that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed innocent until duly tried and proved guilty. Detention of the petitioner, an under-

trial prisoner, for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequences of pre-trial detention are grave.

7(viii) The offending acts are already complete and reflected as such in the records. As per the respondent, voluminous record has already been

seized by CBI during raids conducted by it in 22/26 private institutes, including the institutions involving the petitioner. In such situation, no purpose is

going to be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody. Co-accused persons in chargesheet filed on 30.03.2020, 30.12.2020 involving

K.C.Group of Institutions have already been enlarged on bail. In respect of chargesheet filed on 17.05.2021 regarding institutions involving the

petitioner, his partner Smt. Babita Rajta has been enlarged on bail. Government and bank officials involved in the FIR have also been enlarged on bail.

7(ix) Investigation should not be carried out indefinitely and forever without any regard to time, considering the interests of all involved. Nonetheless it

is open to the respondent to continue to investigate into the matter, however, for this reason, petitioner cannot be permitted to incarcerate as a pre-trial

prisoner. His liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is also required to be protected.

7(x) Respondent while opposing the bail plea besides submitting that strong evidence is available against the petitioner, also expressed its apprehension

that petitioner after grant of bail is likely to abscond or temper with evidence or will influence the witnesses. It cannot be presumed that petitioner will

flee justice or will influence the investigation/witnesses. No material in support of these apprehensions has been placed on record. As per status

report, CBI has already conducted searches at 22/26 private educational institutions, including the institutions involving the petitioner, and seized

voluminous physical and electronic record. Premises of petitioner have also been searched. Petitioner was in police remand from 16.02.2021. At the

instance of CBI, he was sent to judicial custody on 22.02.2021. CBI has not moved any application seeking his police remand. Co-accused have been

enlarged on bail in this very case. No application for cancellation of their bail has been moved. There is no allegation that subsequent to grant of bail,

co-accused persons have tried to breach the bail conditions. The apprehensions expressed by respondent can be taken care of while imposing

conditions for enlargement on bail. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, continued custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not

necessary. Enlargement of petitioner on bail subject to stringent conditions will not pose any threat to society.

Therefore, present bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on her furnishing personal bond in the

sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) with two local sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court/Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, subject to the following conditions:-

(i). Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, shall join the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when called by the

Investigating Agency in accordance with law.

(ii). Petitioner in any case will report to the Trial Court and the investigating officer, once in a fortnight till the investigation in the case is completed in

entirety.

(iii). Petitioner shall surrender his passport to the Trial Court, if not surrendered already. He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

Petitioner shall intimate the investigating agency about the place, where he shall reside during the investigations and the trial. Any change in his place

of residence shall be immediately notified by him to the investigating agency.

(iv). Petitioner shall furnish a cell number to the investigating officer on which he can be contacted at any time. He shall also ensure that the number

remains active and switched on at all times. He shall submit details of his Aadhar Card and other proofs of identity with the investigating agency.

(v). Petitioner shall not temper with the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

(vi). Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise directly or indirectly to the investigating officer, to the witnesses or to any other

person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Courts or any Police Officer. Petitioner shall not

maintain any direct or indirect contact with officials of bank/ education department/private educational institutions concerned with the case. Petitioner

shall not deal with any record relevant to the case. He shall not prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vii). Petitioner shall attend trial on each and

every hearing unless exempted by the Court, in accordance with law.

Any breach, violation or non-compliance of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and will give right to the investigating agency to seek

cancellation of bail. Any unwarranted conduct or action of the petitioner necessitating recall of bail be brought to the notice of the Court. In case of

any genuine difficulty being faced due to any of the above conditions, it shall be open to the petitioner/respondent to move an application seeking

modification thereof either before this Court or after cognizance of the matter before the learned Trial Court as the case may be. Learned Trial Court

may impose any other condition considered appropriate as and when necessary.

It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion

on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. With

the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.