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.260 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 26.07.2020, in the scholarship scam, in compliance with the order of this High Court, passed in Writ Petition No.33 of 2019, Mr. Bhim Bhaskra Arya, Inspector, informant, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After enquiry, Mr. Bhim Bhaskra Arya, Inspector, the informant, lodged an FIR against co-accused persons.

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Balvinder Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he was not the beneficiary; he is not named in the FIR; he has not received any amount of scholarship; the applicant is not the employee of the Social Welfare Department; he is an employee of Uttaranchal Multipurpose Finance & Development Nigam Limited, Udham Singh Nagar; the co-accused persons have been granted the relief of stay of arrest; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar; he is in custody since 14.07.2021.

Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed the bail application, 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 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 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 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 make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating 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.