Surinder Mohan Kanwar vs CBI

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the petitioner's application for relaxation of a condition to furnish two surety bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- was dismissed.

It has been asserted that an F.I.R. was registered based on a complaint made by the State Project Officer, State Project Monitoring and New Initiative Unit Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, regarding non-receipt of scholarship by the students under the State Centrally sponsored schemes for SC/ST/OBC/MC students against 22 institutions. Subsequently, the F.I.R. was entrusted to CBI, and RC0962019A0002 was registered on 07.05.2019 at CBI, ACB, Shimla, H.P, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 465, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against unknown persons. The co-accused filed a petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1040 of 2020 and he was ordered to be released on bail on the condition that he would furnish a bond in the sum of ₹25,00,000/- with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is a retired government servant, and he worked in the Scholarship branch of the Department of Higher Education from June 2017 till June 2019 as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. Twelve different challans were filed before the Court by the CBI, and the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in ten challans. The learned Trial Court directed the petitioner to furnish bail bonds of ₹25,00,000/- with two local sureties. This amount was subsequently reduced to ₹10,00,000/- with two sureties. The petitioner furnished sureties in Challan Nos. 1, 2,3, 4 to 6 to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. He is unable to furnish sureties in Challan No.7. He filed an application before the learned Trial Court to relax the condition. The learned Trial Court ordered that a cash security or bank security in the form of the Court with automatic renewal be furnished. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family and is dependent upon the pension of ₹52,380/-. The condition imposed by the learned Trial Court is harsh. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

The petition is opposed by filing a reply admitting that F.I.R. was registered by the CBI for non-disbursal of the scholarship under the State and Central Government-sponsored scheme for SC/ST/OBC/MC students. The investigation revealed that ICL Group of Colleges had claimed an amount of ₹4,77,97,440/- as scholarship in the name of the students who had not even studied in the institution. The statements of 46 students were recorded. 6 students claimed that they had not taken any admission. 3 students took admission but never visited the college. 15 students visited the college only for one day; the remaining 22 students had left the college after two months or after the 1st semester exams. The students had not availed of any hostel facilities. They had never applied for a scholarship. 272 claims of ₹1,59,88,190/- were made. The CBI filed the charge-sheet against the accused, including the petitioner. The learned Trial Court imposed a reasonable condition to furnish cash security or bank security in the sum of ₹1,00,000/-. The learned Trial Court modified its earlier order, and the petition was allowed to deposit the cash security. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard Mr Dinesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI

Mr Dinesh Kumar Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is unable to provide the cash security; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

Mr Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI, stated that the learned Trial Court had reduced the bail amount from ₹25,00,000/- to ₹1,00,000/-. The petitioner is supposed to furnish bonds to ensure his appearance during the trial. The petitioner cannot escape from furnishing the bonds. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

A perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 10.09.2025 shows that the learned Trial Court asked the petitioner to clarify whether the sureties, who had already furnished the surety bonds, would stand as sureties in other cases as well, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Gandhi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2024 INSC 617 and learned Counsel stated his inability to make any statement.

Learned Trial Court also noticed that the accused was directed to furnish personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each to secure his presence during the trial. Learned Trial Court also provided an option to deposit cash security/bank security in the sum of ₹1,00,000/-, if the petitioner was unable to furnish surety.

It is apparent from the order passed by the learned Trial Court that all the possibilities have been explored. An option was given to the petitioner to file an undertaking that the sureties already furnished would be valid for the remaining cases. Surety amount was reduced to ₹1,00,000/- even though the Court ordered the release of the co-accused on an amount of ₹25,00,000/-. An option was given to furnish bank security in case the petitioner was unable to furnish surety bonds. No other option was available before the learned Trial Court to secure the presence of the petitioner during the trial.

The charge-sheet has been filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 465, 466 and 471 of the IPC. The offences punishable under Sections 409 and 466 are non-bailable in nature.

Section 441 of Cr.P.C. provides that a person seeking release shall furnish his own bond with one or more sufficient surety undertaking that such person shall attend the Court at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue to do so until otherwise directed. Therefore, the petitioner is under an obligation to furnish the bond, and he cannot escape from the statutory obligation by claiming that he is unable to do so.

The order dated 10.09.2025 shows that when the order was announced, accused Nos. 3 to 5 were not present even though they were present in the morning. This clearly shows that the petitioner cannot be trusted to attend the Court on his own, and the insistence upon the surety bonds is not unreasonable.

It is trite to say that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly in an extraordinary situation. The present case does not show any extraordinary situation to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court

In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed, so the pending application(s), if any.

The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.