Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual: High Court of Uttarakhand.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment, but to secure the attendance of the accused. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma, in the matter of Hari Prakash Agarwal S/O Sri Niranjan Lal Agarwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand (FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1548 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with.

In the present case, an FIR was registered against the applicant alleged of having committed the offence under section 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 13(1) (d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An inquiry was conducted in the scholarship scam and upon such inquiry, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Haldwani, nominated the informant Dan Singh Mehta, Sub-Inspector, to initiate the proceeding. After such instruction, an F.I.R. had been lodged by Mr. Dan Singh Mehta on 26.09.2019 alleging therein that the office bearer of Monad University, situated at Hapur, had received Rs. 20,63,900/- towards scholarship amount. It was also found that the amount was misappropriated by the Monad University, the Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Hapur and five middlemen.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was posted as Branch Manager in the Hapur Branch of District Cooperative Bank Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh where the Monad University had opened the account of its students in the terms of Pradhanmantri Jan Dhan Yojana. The counsel further submitted that the applicant was been implicated in this matter; he is neither the beneficiary of the said scheme nor any amount had been received or transferred in his account; the disputed amount i.e., Rs. 20,63,900/- had already been transferred by the Monad University to the account of the District Social Welfare Department, Nainital. Thereby the counsel prayed for his release on bail. as the charge sheet had already been filed and there there was no chance of tampering with the evidence.

The advocate general for the state opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant accepted the incomplete R.T.G.S. forms and transferred money to the account of Monad University. After hearing both the parties the court observed- “there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period,”. Thereby the court allowed the Bail application.

Click here for the Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *