High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay Kumar Jain vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 7 March 2024 · Citation: (2024) 03 UK CK 0029

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 203 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 · 453 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the Case Crime No. 26 of 2020, registered at police station Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal.

2.

In the scholarship scam matter, in compliance with the order of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No. 33 of 2019, a Special Investigation Team was constituted. Sub-Inspector-Ashish Kumar was a member of the said Team. He enquired the matter. After completion of the enquiry, he lodged an FIR. The First Information Report was registered on 18.07.2020.

3.

Heard Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, contended that the applicant, aged about 62 years, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Except for few months in the year 2011, he never remained as Principal of the institute-in-question. He was not named in the First Information Report. Charge-sheet has not been filed against him. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under the said offences against the present applicant. Applicant has never signed any documents as mentioned in the cognizance order. He had not received any amount from the institute-in-question in any form. Co-accused-Ashwani Kumar Kamboj has already been granted Anticipatory Bail by this Court. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding.

5.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally.

6.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

7.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant- Sanjay Kumar Jain is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bonds of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount 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.

iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

8.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

9.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 203 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.