Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Abhinav Jauhari – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 101 of 2024
Decided On : 29-02-2024
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SCHOLARSHIP SCAM - The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The applicant, shown as a middleman, was deemed not to pose a flight risk or a threat to evidence, especially since the charge-sheet had been filed. Conditions were imposed to ensure compliance and prevent misuse of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with a scholarship scam involving multiple IPC sections. A Special Investigating Team had lodged an FIR after inquiry, and the applicant claimed to be falsely implicated as a middleman without any criminal history.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's claims of being falsely implicated were credible, especially since the scholarship amounts were directly deposited into students' accounts. The filing of the charge-sheet indicated no need for custodial interrogation.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail considering the nature of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that personal liberty is a fundamental right and should only be curtailed when absolutely necessary. The absence of a flight risk and the filing of the charge-sheet were significant factors in the decision.
Result: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent misuse.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail in the offence under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the First Information Report No. 404 of 2020, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. In the scholarship scam matter, a Special Investigating Team was constituted in compliance with the order of this Court, passed in the Writ Petition No. 33 of 2019. Mr. Bhim Bhaskar Arya, the Inspector, was a member of the said Special Investigation Team. He inquired the matter and lodged an FIR on 28.11.2020.
3. Heard Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the applicant, who has been shown as a middleman, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He has not received any scholarship amount. The scholarship amount was deposited directly into the bank accounts of the respective students. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. The charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and, two accused persons of the similar role have been granted Anticipatory Bail by this Court.
5. Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A., has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application. However, it has been submitted by him that the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no requirement of the custodial interrogation.
6. 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.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant-Abhinav Jauhari is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case.
(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.
8. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
9. Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 101 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.
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.
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 personal liberty is at stake, provided the accused are willing to cooperate with the investigation.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant demonstrates compliance with legal obligations and poses no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when personal liberty is at stake, especially in the absence of strong evidence or objections from the prosecution.
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 personal liberty is at stake, provided the applicant meets specific conditions and there is no necessity for custodial interrogation.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicants demonstrate no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, and when custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when there is insufficient evidence to justify custodial interrogation, reinforcing the protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
