High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajendra Prasad Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 August 2024 · Citation: (2024) 08 UK CK 0107

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 409, 420 · Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(d), 13(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
1st Bail Application No. 1593 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 506 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Application has been filed for regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.460 of 2019, registered at police station Sahaspur, District Dehradun.

2.

The present applicant is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.

The case of the respondent is that a Special Investigation Team was constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. Manjunath T.C. in pursuance of the letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Home Department of State of Uttarakhand in the scholarship scam matter.

4.

Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

5.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate has contended that the applicant was posted as Gram Vikas Adhikari. He was promoted to the post of Sahayak Khand Vikas Adhikari in the year, 2011. He was transferred to the Block Development Office, Sahaspur, District Dehradun on the same post and he was given the additional charge of Assistant Social Welfare Officer in the year 2015-16. He was directed to verify the concerned students. He verified and submitted his report on 08.01.2016 to the District Social Welfare Office. He was neither the beneficiary in any transaction nor the prosecution has brought any material or evidence to show that the applicant is involved in the present matter. Applicant is not named in the FIR. He is not a previous convict. He is a Government servant, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. The co-accused Anurag Shankhdhar, the then District Social Welfare Officer and two other co-accused have been granted regular bail by this Court. The charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

6.

Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed the Bail Application orally.

7.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars, 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.

8.

The Bail Application is allowed.

9.

Let the applicant – Rajendra Prasad Joshi 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 on the following conditions:-

i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

10.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.