Kanti Ram Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the Case Crime No. 20 of 2019 (Criminal Case No. 2 of 2023), registered at police station New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal.

As per the prosecution case, present applicant was posted on the post of District Social Welfare Officer, Tehri Garhwal from the year 2010 to 2013. During his tenure, he misused Rs. 7,00,420/- by organizing departmental camps against the rules. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a closure report was filed by the Investigating Officer. One Mr. S.K. Singh, an Advocate, filed a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate. An application was moved by the informant-Avinash Singh Bhadoriya, District Social Welfare Officer, Tehri Garhwal that he had no objection in accepting the closure report.

After perusing the case diary, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal took cognizance of the offence under Section 409 IPC against the present applicant while rejecting the closure report. Charge was framed. Examination-in-chief of the informant-Avinash Singh Bhadoriya (PW1) is going on.

Heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the protest petitioner.

Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, submits that 17 camps were organized by the Social Welfare Department, Tehri Garhwal in the year 2010-11, 20 camps in the year 2011-12 and 17 camps in the year 2012-13. The informant (PW1) has stated in his examination-in-chief that the amount spent in the said camps was paid by the applicant through bill vouchers only after approval. He (PW1) himself verified the said bill vouchers and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is not a case of misappropriation of the public money as contemplated in Section 409 IPC. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He has no criminal history, and, he is in judicial custody since 10.02.2023.

Learned counsel for the protest petitioner contended that Mr. S.K. Singh is a social worker. A Writ Petition (No. 33 of 2019) was also filed by him in the scholarship scam matter and when a closure report was filed by the Investigating Officer against the evidence available on record, a protest petition was filed by him.

Learned counsel for the State and protest petitioner contended that recovery of a sum Rs. 7,00,420/- has been issued by the department against the applicant after holding departmental inquiry. The said amount has not been deposited by the applicant yet.

Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submits that the applicant undertakes to deposit the said amount i.e. Rs. 7,00,420/- before the District Social Welfare Officer, Tehri Garhwal under protest within a week from the date of his release.

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 submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Kanti Ram Joshi 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 on the following conditions:-

i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, or violates the said undertaking, application may be filed to cancel the bail order.