Veena Gupta And Two Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for Anticipatory Bail under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the First Information Report No. 14 of 2020 (Criminal Case No. 5470 of 2021), registered at police station Dalanwala, District Dehradun.

Pursuant to letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Principal Secretary, Home of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team was constituted in the scholarship scam matter. After enquiry, Sub-Inspector Sukhpal Singh lodged a First Information Report on 05.02.2020 against Shriram Institute of Technology, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh).

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for State.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, has contended that the said Institute “Shriram Institute of Technology” was run by a registered Trust, namely, “Shri Sai Educational Welfare Trust”. Applicant no. 1 Smt Veena Gupta, aged about 68 years, was the Chairman, the applicant no. 2 Amit Agarwal, aged about 49 years, was the Secretary and the applicant no. 3 Sushant Mittal, aged about 54 years, was the Treasurer of the said Trust from 25.02.2013. The concerned students had received their scholarship. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicants had in any manner taken the amount of scholarship in their private accounts. The trust had not misappropriated any scholarship amount. Applicants were granted interim relief in the Writ Petition, filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the First Information Report. Applicants are permanent residents of District Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding. Applicants are not the previous convict. Charge-sheet has already been filed by the Investigating Officer, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally. However, on instruction, he submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicants 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, the applicants – Smt. Veena Gupta, Amit Agarwal and Sushant Mittal are directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing their personal bonds of Rs. 30,000/-each and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

First Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 875 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.