Shivmurti vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, Section 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 in connection with the Case Crime No. 06 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No.07 of 2023), registered at police station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar.

The First Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 87 of 2021) was dismissed as infructuous on 05.10.2021.

In compliance with the order of this Court, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.33 of 2019, a Special Investigation Team was constituted. Mr. Bhim Bhaskar Arya, the Inspector, was a member of the said Team. After enquiry, he lodged an FIR. The said FIR was registered on 05.01.2020.

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. M. K. Chand, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, submitted that the applicant was granted Interim Anticipatory Bail in his First Anticipatory Bail Application. The First Anticipatory Bail Application was dismissed as infructuous on the statement of the counsel of the applicant, which was given under the impression that the Investigating Officer had accepted the personal bond and sureties of the applicant.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, further contended that the applicant was posted as Personal Assistant in the office of District Social Welfare Officer, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar from August, 2004 to 26.06.2019, and, at that time, there was no policy or Government Order for conducting the physical verification of the students in respect of the institutes, situated outside the State of Uttarakhand. The institute-in-question was situated outside the State of Uttarakhand. The duty of the applicant was to verify the documents of the concerned students. He had verified the documents in accordance with Rules. The entire case rests on documentary evidence. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant is a Government Servant, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is not a previous convict.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application. However, he has submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed.

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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant-Shivmurti is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond 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.

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.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application (No.02 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.