Uttarakhand High Court
Dharmendra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 October, 2020
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1819 of 2020
Dharmendra ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.318 of 2019, registered with Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
2. In the scholarship scam, in compliance of the order of this High Court, passed in Writ Petition No.33 of 2019, Govind Ballabh Joshi, informant, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After enquiry, the informant lodged an FIR on 27.09.2019 against four middlemen including the present applicant.
3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated; he was not beneficiary; he has not received any scholarship amount; he is in custody since 24.07.2020; the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there 2 is no chance of tampering with the evidence; co-accused has been granted bail by this High Court.
5. The learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail application, however, he fairly concedes that it is not clear at this stage whether any of the scholarship amount was received by the applicant, a middleman, and if it was received, how much was received.
6. Bail is the rule and the 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.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant 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 :-
i) the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;
ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;3
10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 15.10.2020 JKJ/Neha