The Uttarakhand high court passed a judgement on 6th June 2022 in the case Rahul vishnoi v. state of Uttarakhand and others (SECOND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 05 of 2022) the case was presided over by the Honorable Justice Mr. Alok Verma
FACTS OF THE CASE
that in the scholarship scam matter, vide letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Principal Secretary, Home of the Government of Uttarakhand a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted. Sub-Inspector Lalita Chufal, the informant of this matter, was appointed as a member of the said Special Investigation Team. After enquiry, she lodged a First Information Report on 14.10.2019 against Manav Bharti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present applicant.
During the investigation, evidence is found that the present applicant was the owner of N Power Academy. The said Academy was run and managed by the present applicant. The said Academy of the applicant was not recognized by Manav Bharti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The owner of the said Academy had forwarded the list of the concerned students to the Social Welfare Department to get scholarship of the said students and tuition fee. The Social Welfare Department had released the scholarship amount including the tuition fee to the said Academy and the said amount was deposited in the account of the present applicant, the owner of the said Academy.
accused had moved an application for anticipatory bail before the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in connection with the First Information Report No.357 of 2019, registered with Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. On 24.12.2021, the learned In-charge District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar had rejected the said application for anticipatory bail.
The anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the offence. Being an extraordinary remedy, it should be restored to only in a special case.
It would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial court. But, the evidence, collected during the investigation, prima facie indicates involvement of the applicant in the offence in question. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application has no merit and is liable to be rejected.
The applicant had opportunity to raise all his contentions on the previous occasion. It is not open to the applicant to make successive anticipatory bail application even on the grounds already rejected by this Court earlier.
On overall consideration of the application and also in the fact that any change in circumstances is not established, after rejection of the first anticipatory bail application on merit, I do not find any change in circumstances to entertain present second anticipatory bail application. The Second Anticipatory Bail Application does not deserve to be entertained. Consequently, the present Second Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANANTH PAI