Point of law : 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.

JUDGMENT :

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.0090 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kotwali Dalanwala, District Dehradun for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.

2. In the scholarship scam, vide letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) was constituted. The informant, Mr. Chandrabhan Singh Adhikari, Inspector, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After enquiry, Mr. Chandrabhan Singh Adhikari, Inspector, lodged an FIR on 14.06.2020 against the owner/manager of Krishna College of Law, Village Kamalpur, Chhutmalpur, Saharanpur, U.P.

3. Heard Ms. Neetu Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Paratiroop Pande, the learned A.G.A. along with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

4. Ms. Neetu Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant was the owner/chairman of the Institute-in-question; the scholarship amounts were deposited directly in the bank accounts of the concerned students and only tuition fee were paid by the concerned students to the Institute-in-question; the said scholarship amount had never been paid directly to his Institute by the Social Welfare Department; the applicant is in judicial custody since 14.07.2020; the applicant has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two other matters and this High Court has also granted bail to the applicant in two case. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence and the applicant undertakes that he will deposit Rs. 5 lakh with the concerned Social Welfare Department within three weeks from the date of his release on bail.

5. The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. He submitted that during the investigation embezzlement of Rs. 20,52,200/- was found. However, he submitted that it is not clear at this stage whether any of the scholarship amount was received by the applicant himself and if it was received, how much was received.

6. 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.

7. 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 merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant Anil Kumar 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.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court.

10. 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.