Allowed

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Dec 2021BA1/2840/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by Rajendra Kumar for offences related to a scholarship scam under IPC and PCA, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the bail. The court observed there was no reason to keep the applicant detained indefinitely and granted bail subject to executing a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond with two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court, subject to conditions of regular attendance and no inducement.

Rajendra Kumar 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

6^th DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2840 of 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

Rajendra Kumar …Applicant

¶7

and

¶8

State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar.

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Balvinder Singh, 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.0059 of 2020, registered with Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶13

2 . According to the FIR dated 20.02.2020, in the scholarship scam, in compliance with the order, passed by

¶14

¶15

this High Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.33 of 2019, Inspector Bhim Bhaskar Arya, was appointed as a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). After enquiry, the informant Bhim Bhaskar Arya, Inspector, lodged an FIR against the co-accused persons.

¶16

3 . Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Balvinder Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶17

4 . Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he was not the beneficiary of the scholarship; he had not received any scholarship amount; the applicant is in custody since 05.10.2021; he is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar; one co-accused person have been granted bail by this High Court; the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶18

5 . Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed the bail application. However, he submitted that it is not clear at this stage whether any of the scholarship amount was received by the applicant and if it was received, how much was received .

¶19

6 . 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.

¶20

¶21

7 . 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

9 . Let the applicant Rajendra Kumar 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

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

10 . 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.

¶27

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶28

Dated: 06^th December, 2021 Neha

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar 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

Anil Kumar Ojasvi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anil Kumar Ojasvi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gursimran Singh Chadha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepa Joshi Vs Saurabh Joshi

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand