Allowed

Munish Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttarakand

Uttarakhand HC7 Dec 2021BA1/2825/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Munish Kumar Tyagi, accused in a scholarship scam case involving IPC offences and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court held there is no reason for indefinite detention despite the early investigation stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties;

What the court decided

Munish Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakand — 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. 2825 of 2021

¶4

07^TH DECEMBER, 2021

Between:

Munish Kumar Tyagi.

…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 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 FIR No.227 of 2019, registered with Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar 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. 2. In the scholarship scam, in the compliance of the letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted. Mr. Kamal Kumar Lunthi was a member of the Special Investigation Team. After inquiry, Mr. Kamal Kumar Lunthi has lodged an FIR on 27.10.2019 against the owner/manager of Hemlata Institute Near Crystal World, Bahadarabad, Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

¶14

¶15

During the investigation, the name of the applicant came into light.

¶16

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

¶17

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar in the year, 2012; on the direction of the then District Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar, he had visited the Institute-in-question and verified the concerned students in accordance with law; after verification, he had sent the verification report to the then District Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar; then, he was transferred from the Haridwar on 10.02.2012; after one year of the submission of his verification report, the scholarship-in-question were disbursed; the applicant has no fault in disbursement of the scholarship; he had sent his verification report in accordance with law; he was retired from the service on 30.11.2018; no departmental inquiry has been instituted against him; he is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; he is in custody since 23.10.2021.

¶18

Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submitted that at this stage of the investigation, it is not clear that any of the scholarship amount was received by the applicant, and, if it was 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

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

The bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant Munish Kumar Tyagi 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: 07^th December, 2021 Pant/

Munish Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttarakand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Munish Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttarakand

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

Deepa Joshi Vs Saurabh Joshi

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Munish Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Krishna Dev Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Om Prakash Vs C.B.I.