Allowed

Subhash v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC21 Aug 2021BA1/1888/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted regular bail to the applicant in a scholarship scam case involving embezzlement allegations under the IPC, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Subhash be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

What the court decided

Subhash Vs State of Uttarakhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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. 1888 of 2021

¶4

21^ST AUGUST, 2021

Between:

Subhash …Applicant

and

State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mrs. Neetu Singh. (through video conferencing)

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General (through video conferencing) for the State.

¶11

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶12

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.357 of 2019, registered with Police Station S.I.D.C.U.L, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 120B and 34 of IPC.

¶13

According to the FIR dated 14.10.2019, in the scholarship scam, the informant Sub-Inspector Lalita Chufal was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After inquiry, the informant lodged an FIR against owner of Manav Bharti, Viswa Vidhyalaya, Solan,

¶14

¶15

Himachal Pradesh. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is submitted.

¶16

Heard Mrs. Neetu Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State through video conferencing.

¶17

Mrs. Neetu Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; he was President of Kiran Institute of Management and Technology at Tansipur, PS Manglore, District Haridwar; the said Institute is affiliated from Manav Bharti, Viswa Vidhyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh; according to the charge-sheet, the allegations against the applicant are that his Institute had received a sum of Rs.16,69,300/-, for the academic year 2011-12, which was embezzled by the present applicant with his wife, Vice-President of the said Institute. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said allegations are false. The Institute-in-question received a sum of Rs.16,69,300/for the academic year 2011-12 and out of the said amount, Rs.6,80,000/- were disbursed to the concerned students as their scholarship and a rest of the amount was utilized by the Institute as its fee. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed a copy of the bank account to support the said submissions. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that after availing the sufficient opportunity, the State did not file any objection against the said bank account. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the co-accused of the identical role has been granted bail by this High Court; and he is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; he has no criminal history; he is in custody since 14.03.2020; charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶18

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the co-accused of the identical role has been granted bail by this High Court and the applicant has no criminal history.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

8. The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant Subhash 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 :-

¶24

i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶29

Dt: 21^st August, 2021 JKJ/Neha

Subhash v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Subhash 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

Saleem Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohan Giri Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vinod Kumar Kuliyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kavita Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mahipal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhupendra Chand Vs State of Uttarakhand