Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/248/2021 on 29 November, 2021
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
29th NOVEMBER, 2021
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 248 of 2021
Between:
Deepankar Ghildiyal. ...Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned
Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Prasanna Karnatak,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned
Deputy Advocate General
assisted by Mr. P.S.
Uniyal, learned Brief Holder
for the State.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,
Apprehending his arrest, the applicant moved an
application for anticipatory bail before the learned Special
Judge, Vigilance/Third Additional Sessions Judge,
Dehradun in connection with Case Crime No. 0015 of
2020, registered with Police Station Basant Vihar, District
2
Dehradun for the offence under Sections 420, 409, 467,
468, 471 of IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section
13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On
08.11.2021, the learned Special Judge/ Third Additional
Sessions Judge, Dehradun rejected the said application for
anticipatory bail.
2. This application, under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the applicant
before this court seeking anticipatory bail in the event of
his arrest.
3. Heard Mr. A.S. Rawat, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, the learned
counsel for the applicant and Mr. T. C. Agarwal, the
learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S.
Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
4. According to the present matter, the informant
Mr. Santosh Semwal, Sub-Inspector, was appointed as a
member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the
scholarship scam. After enquiry, he lodged an FIR on
05.02.2020 against unknown person.
5. Mr. A.S. Rawat, the learned Senior Advocate,
submitted that the applicant was posted as Assistant
Social Welfare Officer, Dehradun in the year, 2015-16
only; in compliance of the direction dated 08.01.2016, of
3
the then District Social Welfare Officer, the applicant had
visited the institute-in-question and verified the students
in the light of the check-list of the nineteen students of the
members of the Scheduled Castes and thirty students of
the members of the Scheduled Tribes as provided by the
then District Social Welfare Officer; on verification, the
applicant found that only nine students of the members of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were present
and one student was not found eligible to get scholarship
in the light of the income. The learned Senior Advocate
further submitted that during the visit, the applicant found
that only those students (nine students) were eligible for
the scholarship. However, the District Social Welfare
Department disbursed the scholarship amongst the forty
students; the applicant was at no fault in the process of
disbursement of the scholarship amount to those students,
who were not eligible to get the scholarship according to
the report of the applicant. The learned Senior Advocate
further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he
will co-operate with the Investigating Agency.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the State
opposed the anticipatory bail application. However, he
fairly submitted that in the light of the said check-list of
the District Social Welfare Officer, the applicant had
4
submitted his report and according to the said report, only
nine students were present at the time of his visit. He
further submitted that the investigation of this case is still
in progress. Therefore, he requested three weeks' time to
get instructions regarding the present status of the
investigation.
7. The scheme of the Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is introduced by the State of
Uttarakhand vide Act No.22/2020. Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:-
(1), Where any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable
offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of
Session for a direction under this section that in the event of
such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may,
after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors,
namely :-
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation ;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a Court in respect of anv cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of
injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested,
either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim
order for the grant of anticipatory bail:
Provided that where the High Court or, as the case may be,
the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under
this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of
anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a
police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the
basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.
(2) Where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court
of Session, considers it expedient to issue an interim order to
grant anticipatory bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall
indicate therein the date, on which the application for grant of
anticipatory bail shall be finally heard for passing an order
thereon, as the Court may deem fit, and if the Court passes
5
any order granting anticipatory bail, such order shall include
inter alia the following conditions, namely:-
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court; and
(iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-
section (3) of section 437. as if the bail were granted under
that section.
Explanation: the final order made on an application for
direction under sub- section (1); shall not be construed as an
interlocutory order for the purpose of this Code.
(3) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-
section (l), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than
seven days notice, together, with a copy of such order to be
served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of
Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable
opportunity of being heard when the application shall be
finally heard by the Court.
(4) On the date indicated in the interim order under sub-
section (2), the Court shall hear the Public Prosecutor and
the applicant and after due consideration of their contentions,
it may either confirm, modify or cancel the interim order.
(5) The High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may
be, shall finally dispose of an application for grant of
anticipatory bail under sub-section (l), within thirty days of the
date of such application;
(6) Provisions of this section shall not be applicable,-
(a) to the offences arising out of, -
(i) the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967;
(ii) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985;
(iii) the Official Secrets Act, 1923;
(iv) the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986;) Adaptation and
Modification Order, 2002
(v) sub-section(3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section
376DA or Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code;
(vi) chapter 6 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, viz, offences
against the state (except Section 129);
(vii) The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, 2012;
(b) in the offences, in which death sentence may be awarded.
6
(7) If an application under this section has been made by any
person to the High Court, no application by the same person
shall be entertained by the Court of Session.
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. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for both the parties and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion
as to the merit of the case, this court directs that in the
event of arrest, the applicant-accused Deepankar Ghildiyal
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.30,000/- with two reliable sureties, each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer/Arresting Officer with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available at
the time of interrogation by a police officer as and
when requires;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without
the previous permission of the Court;
7
10. List on 22.12.2021 for arguments on the
application of anticipatory bail. Meanwhile, report of the
present status of the investigation be filed.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 29th November, 2021 Neha