Allowed

Mohan Giri v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC18 Aug 2021BA1/1431/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a scholarship scam case involving cheating and corruption, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the bail application of an applicant alleged to have no role in the disbursement of funds. The court granted bail, releasing the applicant on a personal bond with conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed; the applicant governed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Mohan Giri Vs State of Uttarakhand — Corruption | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶3

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1431 of 2021

¶4

18^TH AUGUST, 2021

Between:

Mohan Giri

…Applicant

and

State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kaushik.

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶12

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶13

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.0042 of 2019, registered with Police Station Bhimtal, District Nainital for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶14

In the scholarship scam, in compliance with the order dated 06.07.2019, passed by this High Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.33 of 2019, Dan Singh Mehta, Sub-

¶15

¶16

Inspector, was appointed as a member of Special Investigation Team (SIT). After enquiry, the informant lodged an FIR on 26.09.2019 against the Manager of Monard University, situated in Hapur, Uttar Pradesh and co-accused persons.

¶17

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. PS. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶18

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is presently posted as Senior Administrative Officer in the Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Haldwani, District Nainital and at the relevant point of time, he was working on the post of Senior Assistant in Social Welfare Department, Nainital. There is no allegation against the applicant in the FIR. The scholarship amounts were disbursed to the concerned students under the signature of the then Social Welfare Officer and there was no role of the applicant in the said disbursement. The duty of the applicant was to check the scholarship forms only to the extent that whether all the papers required for eligibility of scholarship were accompanied with the scholarship form or not. There was no rule and regulation or a Government Order to authorize a Senior Assistant to look into genuineness and veracity of scholarship form or papers, annexed in support of the application. The owners/trustees of the Monard University have deposited the disputed amount of Rs.20,63,900/- by way of the demand drafts to the Social Welfare Department and in the present matter, the owners/trustees of Monard University namely, Sushant

¶19

¶20

Jain, Anand Prakash Garg, Anil Kapoor and Ramesh Agarwal have been granted bail by this High Court.

¶21

Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposed the bail application. However, he submitted that it is not clear at this stage that any of the scholarship amount was received by the present applicant and if it was received, how much was received. He also fairly conceded that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

¶24

8. The bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant Mohan Giri be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the

¶26

¶27

satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶28

i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when requires;

¶29

ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;

¶30

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the Investigating Officer will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.

¶31

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶32

Dt: 18^th August, 2021

¶33

JKJ/

Mohan Giri v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Giri v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Kuliyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sachin Kumar Bhati Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Raj Vs State of Uttarakhand

Saleem Vs State of Uttarakhand

Subhash Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kavita Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand