Uttaranchal High Court: Alok Kumar Verma, J., allowed a bail application which was filed in connection with Case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Penal Code, 1860.
In the scholarship scam, in compliance with the order of the High Court, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.33 of 2019, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had been constituted at the District level and after enquiry an FIR was lodged against one Mohan Singh and Owner/Manager/Employee of Maa Gayatri Institute of Management and Technology, Gajrola, (U.P.).
Counsel for the applicant, Mr Lokendra Dobhal submitted that applicant was a co-owner of Maa Gayatri Institute of Management and Technology and he was innocent and he was not named in the FIR, the applicant has not forged any document; the scholarship money has never been deposited in the account of the present applicant, however, he had deposited under protest the disputed amount a sum of Rs.,3,10,600/- with the concerned District Social Welfare Office, District Udham Singh Nagar; the applicant is in custody since 05.12.2020; there is no criminal history of the applicant; charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Mr Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application.
The Court allowed the Bail application and held that,
“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.”
[Vivek Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 495, decided on 24-05-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this report together