Anjar Ahmad & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

These three bail applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.837 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of IPC.

Mr. Brijpal Singh Rathore, Deputy Education Officer (Primary Education)/ respondent no.3 lodged an FIR on 04.12.2020 alleging therein that the Manager, Principal, President of Society of Aroma Public School had opened the said school without registering under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and had misappropriated the Government funds from the year, 2013 to 2019 - 2020 by showing false registration of students, thereby fraud and forgery were committed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3.

Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, the learned counsel for the applicant – Anjar Ahmad submitted that the applicant was Manager of Aroma Public School. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant – Abdul Rehman was President of the Society of Aroma Public School. Mr. Suhail Ahmed Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the applicant – Jiyauddin submitted that the applicant was the Principal of Aroma Public School.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated; no prima facie evidence is found against the applicants; the applicants are permanent resident of District Haridwar. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicant – Jiyauddin is in custody since 08.08.2021, the applicant – Abdul Rehman is in custody since 21.06.2021 and the applicant – Anjar Ahmad is in custody since 20.03.2021 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail applications and submitted that the applicants had received benefits from two sides, i.e., from the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, namely, Special Quality Education for Madarsa and under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

In reply, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Aroma Public School received the funds from the Special Quality Education for Madarsa Scheme for the teachers of Aroma Public School and the funds for the students of the said school were received from the Government under the said Act, 2009.

Mr. Bilal Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3, namely, Brijpal Singh Rathore, the informant of this case, submitted that due to the misconception of facts, the First Information Report was lodged by the respondent no.3. He further submitted that after enquiry, the respondent no.3 found that the said funds were allotted to the Aroma Public School in accordance with law/rules and the said amounts, received from Special Quality Education for Madarsa Scheme was disbursed amongst the teachers and the amounts of fund, received from the Government under the said Act, 2009, were deposited in the Bank Accounts of the concerned students.

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.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicants 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 applicants deserve bail at this stage.

The bail applications are allowed.

Let the applicants – Anjar Ahmad, Abdul Rehman and Jiyauddin be released on bail on their 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 :-

i) The applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

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

It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the Prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.