In this Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail application, the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court refused bail to the applicant, a school principal accused of embezzling scholarships. The court held the allegations serious and it not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C. refused/rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3146 of 2023
Applicant :- Vaishnavi Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Vaishnavi Jaiswal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.633 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of her arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case is going on. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
In this matter, it is alleged in the F.I.R. that in some of the schools, an embezzlement has been made in respect of scholarship of minority students wherein the principals of the said schools themselves make KYC and get their schools registered and thereafter forward the names of the students, who are not eligible for the scholarship scheme and when the scholarship amount is transferred to the Bank account of those students, a group of persons who are involved alongwith Principals in the said offence, contact the students, obtain their bio-metric T.I. and encash the amount from the Bank. It also reveals that when an enquiry was made by the C.D.O. against the present applicant, it was found that in the school 'Swatantrata Senani Brij Bihari Ganga Devi High School, Pilibhit, where the present applicant is working as Principal, no minority student was registered, meaning thereby that the number of minority students in the said school was zero and despite that in the year 2020-21 and 2021-22, a total of 218 and
270 registered minority students respectively have received scholarship. It is very strange that in a school where the number of minority students is zero, how about five hundred minority students received scholarship. It is a huge embezzlement and the offence has been committed by a person who happens to be the Principal of an Institution. In this matter, custodial interrogation of the applicant seems to be necessary. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.
The application is rejected .
Order Date :- 7.4.2023 safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving embezzlement and serious allegations as Principal of a school.
Whether the nature of the offence and serious implications warrant refusal of anticipatory bail despite applicant's claim of innocence.
Whether the applicant has a credible apprehension of arrest justifying the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherReferred¶9
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vaishnavi Jaiswal
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
