Som Prakash 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.22 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kailyar, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In the scholarship scam, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the State Government. After enquiry, Mr. Shailendra Mamgai, Sub-Inspector/ a member of SIT lodged an FIR on 04.02.2020 against the co-accused.

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that at the relevant point of time, the applicant was Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar; his duty was to verify the list of the concerned students for scholarship; at that time, there was no provision for physical verification of the concerned students; the applicant verified the list, provided by the concerned Institute, in accordance with law; after verification, he had forwarded the list to the District Social Welfare Officer; the then District Social Welfare Officer had disbursed the scholarship; there was no fault of the applicant in disbursement of the scholarship; the applicant has retired in the month of February, 2019 and after his retirement, the present FIR was lodged; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; he is in custody since 15.11.2021; the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

On the other hand Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that that at this stage, it is not clear that the applicant had received any scholarship amount 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 submission 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-Som Prakash 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.