IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Abhishek Agarwal - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 882 Of 2023
Decided On : 24-11-2023
Anticipatory Bail - Scholarship Scam - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, Section 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7A
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for anticipatory bail in connection with a scholarship scam case involving embezzlement of funds. The investigating officer filed a charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence collected during the investigation prima facie indicated the involvement of the applicant in the offence. The court concluded that the anticipatory bail application had no merit and was liable to be rejected.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail in a scholarship scam case, the involvement of the applicant in the embezzlement of funds, and the gravity of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the grant of anticipatory bail should be considered based on the prima facie case against the accused and the nature of the offence, and that custodial interrogation not being required by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The court also considered the gravity of the offence and the lack of established special circumstances in the present case.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, clarifying that the observations made were limited to the facts provided by the parties at that stage and would not affect the trial of the case.
JUDGMENT :
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with the Case Crime No. 60 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No. 17of 2023), registered at police station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. In the scholarship scam matter, a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T) was constituted in compliance with the order of this High Court. Mr. N.N. Pant, Inspector, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team. After inquiry, the informant lodged an FIR against the co-accused persons. The said FIR was registered on 11.03.2020. Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and perused the relevant records of the Institute-in-question. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and co-accused persons.
3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Applicant was not arrested during the investigation. He was granted protection by this Court. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, custodial interrogation is not needed, and, co-accused persons have been granted bail. However, he has conceded that the scholarship amounts of six students were not returned to the concerned students.
5. Opposing the Anticipatory Bail Application, Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State, contended that the present applicant was a Director/Owner as well as an authorized signatory of the bank accounts of the Institute-in-question. In the present scholarship scam matter, an amount of Rs. 10,65,900/- has been found to have been embezzled.
6. Mr. Rakesh Negi, Advocate, further contended that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation is not required. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in ‘X’ Versus Arun Kumar C.K. and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870.
7. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
8. In Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 2017 (2) CCSC 876 (SC), it has been observed that filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation, the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused person.
9. The State of Uttarakhand had issued Government Orders, whereby the process of scholarship had been fixed to be given by the Department of Social Welfare to the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Minority Classes. These scholarships are given to encourage the parents from these Classes to send their wards to schools and colleges, and to ensure that education is not denied due to the poor financial condition of their families. The object of this scholarship scheme is to support the parents of these Classes for educating their w
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
The grant of anticipatory bail should be based on the prima facie case against the accused, the nature of the offence, and the lack of established special circumstances.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant demonstrates no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, and personal liberty is a paramount consideration.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when personal liberty is at stake, and the applicant poses no flight risk or threat to the investigation.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when personal liberty is at stake, provided there are no compelling reasons for denial.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when personal liberty is at stake and no custodial interrogation is necessary.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when personal liberty is at stake, provided the accused are willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and absconders are generally ineligible for anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant demonstrates no direct involvement in the alleged crime, especially when personal liberty is at stake and the charge-sheet has been filed.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant demonstrates no risk of absconding and when personal liberty is at stake, especially in cases where custodial interrogat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.