Vivek Kumar Sharma 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 Case

Crime No.214 of 2020, registered with Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 406,

420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C.

In the scholarship scam, in compliance with the order of this High Court, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.33 of 2019, a Special Investigation Team

(SIT) has been constituted at the District level. The informant of this matter, Inspector Mr. N.N. Pant, inquired the matter and after enquiry, an FIR

dated 26.07.2020 was lodged by him against one Mohan Singh and Owner/Manager/Employee of Maa Gayatri Institute of Management and

Technology, Gajrola, (U.P.). During the investigation, the name of the present applicant came into light. After the investigation, charge-sheet is

submitted.

Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the

learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.

Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a co-owner of Maa Gayatri Institute of Management and

Technology, Gajrola, (U.P.), Institute-in-question; he is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; he is not named in the FIR; the applicant

has not forged any document; the scholarship money has never been deposited in the account of the present applicant, however, he has deposited

under protest the disputed amount a sum of Rs.,3,10,600/- with the concerned District Social Welfare Office, District Udham Singh Nagar; the

applicant is in custody since 05.12.2020; there is no criminal history of the applicant; charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance

of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the applicant has deposited

the entire disputed amount and the applicant has no criminal history.

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 submissions 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 merits 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 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.