Allowed

Ram Avtar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Nov 2021BA1/2239/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand granted regular bail to Ram Avtar, the District Social Welfare Officer implicated in a scholarship scam FIR under Section 439 CrPC. The court released him on personal bond with two sureties, imposing standard bail conditions regarding attendance and silence.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond with two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation and non-interference with witnesses.

Ram Avtar 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

8^TH NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2239 of 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

Ram Avtar. …Applicant

¶7

and

¶8

State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kaushik.

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Prartiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder 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.0065 of 2020, registered with Police Station Basant Vihar, District Dehradun for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶13

According to the FIR dated 23.06.2020, in the scholarship scam, vide letter dated 17.04.2018 of Principal Secretary, Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team was constituted. Mr. Aditya Saini, Sub-Inspector was appointed as a member of the

¶14

¶15

Special Investigation Team (SIT). After enquiry, Mr. Aditya Saini, Sub-Inspector, lodged an FIR against the Saraswati Institute of Technology and Management, Dehradun.

¶16

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he is not named in the FIR; at the relevant point of time, he was the District Social Welfare Officer, Dehradun; he had transferred the scholarship amounts in the accounts of the students in accordance with law; no offence is made out against the applicant; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Dehradun; the applicant, aged about 68 years, has retired from his service and he is in custody since 14.08.2021.

¶17

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State, has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the scholarship amount was disbursed by the applicant against the law. However, he fairly conceded that at this stage of the investigation, it is not clear whether any amount of the scholarship was received/embezzled by the applicant himself and if it was received/embezzled, how much was received/embezzled.

¶18

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 investigation is not

¶19

¶20

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 merit 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 Ram Avtar 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 make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when requires;

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶28

Dt: 08^th November, 2021 Neha

Ram Avtar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Avtar 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

Som Prakash Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Arya Vs Manoj Kumar Gupta

Santosh Singh Dobal Vs Rama Dobal Alias Vandana

Vineet Vs State of Uttarakhand

Praveen Dhama Alias Dumpy Dhama Vs State of Uttarkahand

Anurag Shankhdhar Vs State of Uttarakhand