Uttarakhand High Court
Rajnish Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 December, 2023
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
06TH DECEMBER, 2023
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.2137 of 2023
Rajnish Kumar. .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. .....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Lalit Sharma, Special
Counsel.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
This Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.01 of 2020, registered at police station Vigilance Establishment Sector, Dehradun, District Dehradun.
2. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. As per the First Information Report, Mr. Pradeep Pant, Inspector, Vigilance Sector, Dehradun lodged an FIR on 08.01.2020 that he had conducted an open enquiry regarding the rigging in the Gram Panchayat Development Officers Examination, 2016, in which, serious irregularities were found. 2 Charge-sheet has been filed after completion of the investigation.
4. Opposing the bail application, Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Special Counsel for the State, contended that the role of the present applicant is that he along with co-accused Arjun Singh had collected Rs.11,00,000/- from Anupriya Sharma, Rs.13,00,000/- from Netrapal, Rs.11,00,000/- from Parvez Alam and Rs.10,50,000/- from Indrajeet Singh to get them selected in the said examination and handed over the said money to co-accused Sanjeev Chauhan, the brother of co- accused Rajesh Kumar Chauhan, the owner of the Company, RMS Techno Solution Pvt. Ltd. The RMS Techno Solution Pvt. Ltd was given contract to conduct the said examination.
5. On the other hand, Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, contended that the applicant is an innocent person. He has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He had not received any money from any person. Neither any source of the said amount has been disclosed by the persons mentioned above nor has any evidence been found during the investigation regarding any kind of conspiracy with Sanjeev Chauhan or any officer or employee related to the said examination. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Bijnor (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Two co- 3 accused persons of similar role, namely, Mukesh Kumar and Mukesh Sharma have been granted bail by this Court, and, applicant is in custody since 31.08.2023.
6. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Special Advocate, has fairly conceded that there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activities.
7. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.
8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
9. The Bail Application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Rajnish Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- 4
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.
iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.
11. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, Prosecution will be free to file an application to cancel the bail.
___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 06.12.2023 Neha