Rajendra Kumar 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.30 of 2020, registered with Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 420, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B

of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

According to the FIR dated 27.01.2020, in the scholarship scam, in compliance with the order of this High Court, passed in Writ Petition No.33 of

2019, Mr. N.N. Pant, Inspector, informant, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After enquiry, Mr. N.N. Pant,

Inspector, the informant, lodged an FIR against the owner, officers and employees of Krishna Law College, Bijnore, Uttar Pradesh and two

middlemen.

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State through

video conferencing.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he is not named in the FIR;

he was not the beneficiary; he has not received any amount of scholarship; the applicant is a resident of District Udham Singh Nagar; he is in custody

since 24.05.2021 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Counter affidavit has not been filed despite availing sufficient opportunity to file the same.

Mr. T. C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed the bail application orally, however, he submitted that 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 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 Rajendra Kumar 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.