Allowed

Ram Avtar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Dec 2021BA1/2774/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand granted regular bail to an accused implicating in a scholarship scam. The court held that bail is the rule and there was no reason to keep the applicant in custody indefinitely, allowing release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond with two reliable sureties subject to available for interrogation and not influencing 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

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2774 of 2021

¶4

08^th DECEMBER, 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. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA 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.0098 of 2020, registered with Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 120-B 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 matter of the scholarship scam, in compliance of the letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted. The Sub-Inspector Mr. Manoj Negi was a member of the Special Investigation Team. After enquiry, the informant, Mr. Manoj Negi, Sub-Inspector, lodged the

¶14

¶15

said FIR against the owner/manager of the Corporate Institute of Technology, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, the then District Social Welfare Officer, Dehradun and others.

¶16

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned AGA for the State.

¶17

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; at the relevant point of time, he was the District Social Welfare Officer, Dehradun; he had transferred the scholarship amount in the account of the concerned students; he has retired from service; no offence has been made out against the applicant; the applicant, aged about 68 years, is a permanent resident of District Dehradun.

¶18

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned AGA appearing for the State, opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that at the present stage i.e. the stage of investigation, it is not clear that the applicant had received himself any scholarship amount, if received, how much was received.

¶19

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 punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

The bail application is allowed.

¶24

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 :-

¶25

i) The applicant shall make himself available at the time of interrogation by a police officer as and when requires;

¶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 Investigating Officer will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.

¶28

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶29

Dt: 08^th December, 2021

¶30

Pant/

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

Munish Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakand

Munish Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepa Joshi Vs Saurabh Joshi

Krishna Dev Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Om Prakash Vs C.B.I.

Akhtar Vs Sri Surjeet Singh Gandhi