IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when personal liberty is at stake and custodial interrogation is not warranted.

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 420, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with the Case Crime No. 60 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No.17 of 2023), registered at police station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. The First Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 212 of 2021) was dismissed as infructuous on 28.12.2021.

3. As per the prosecution’s case, a Special Investigation Team was constituted in compliance with the order of this Court, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.33 of 2019. Informant-N.N. Pant, the Inspector, was appointed as a member of the said Team. He conducted the enquiry, and, after conducting the enquiry, he lodged an FIR on 11.03.2020. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the present applicant and co-accused persons.

4. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

5. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, submitted that the applicant was granted Interim Anticipatory Bail in the First Anticipatory Bail Application. The First Anticipatory Bail Application was dismissed as infructuous on the statements of the counsel of the applicant, which was given under the impression that the Investigating Officer had accepted the personal bonds and sureties of the applicant.

6. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that the applicant was posted as Personal Assistant in the office of District Social Welfare Officer, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar from August, 2004 to 26.06.2019, and, at that time, there was no policy or Government Order for conducting the physical verification of the students in respect of the institutes situated outside the State of Uttarakhand. There was no policy prior to 15.07.2015 for physical verification of the students, and, on 15.07.2015, for the first time, the policy was issued by a Government Order for physical verification of the students, studying in the institutes situated outside the State of Uttarakhand. The Institute-in-question in the present matter was situated outside the State of Uttarakhand. The duty of the applicant was to verify the documents of the concerned students. He had verified the documents of the concerned students in accordance with rules. The entire case rests on documentary evidence and all the relevant documents are in the possession of the Investigating Officer. Applicant is a Government servant, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. He is not a previous convict. The charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation.

7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application and submitted that it was the duty of the present applicant to maintain/supervise all the relevant documents of the Social Welfare Department, but, he failed to perform his duty. However, he submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation.

8. 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.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant- Shivmurti 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:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.