Munish Kumar Tyagi 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.357 of 2019, registered with Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 120-B 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 the compliance of the letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted. The Sub-Inspector Lalita Chuphal was a member of the Special Investigation Team. After inquiry, Sub-Inspector Lalita Chuphal has lodged an FIR on 14.10.2019 against the owner/manager of Manav Bharti, Vishwavidyalaya Solan, Himanchal Pradesh. During the investigation, the name of the applicant came into light.

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar in the year, 2012; on the direction of the then District Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar, he had visited the Institute-in-question and verified the concerned students in accordance with law; after verification, he had sent the verification report to the then District Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar; then, he was transferred from the Haridwar on 10.02.2012; after one year of the submission of his verification report, the scholarship-in-question were disbursed; the applicant has no fault in disbursement of the scholarship; he had sent his verification report in accordance with law; he was retired from the service on 30.11.2018; no departmental inquiry has been instituted against him; he is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; he is in custody since 14.10.2021.

Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submitted that at this stage of the investigation, it is not clear that 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 investigation 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 Munish Kumar Tyagi 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 make himself available at the time of interrogation by a police officer as and when requires;

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 Investigating Officer will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.