AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Kumar Verma, J
The present Bail Application has 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.357 of 2019, registered with Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that in the scholarship scam matter, vide letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Principal Secretary, Home of the Government of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted. Sub-Inspector, Lalita Chufal, informant of the present matter, was appointed as a member of the SIT. After enquiry, she lodged a First Information Report on 14.10.2019, against Manav Bharti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
During the investigation, evidence are found that the present applicant-accused was the owner of N Power Academy. The said Academy was run and managed by the present applicant-accused. The Academy of the applicant was not recognized by Manav Bharti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The owner of the said Academy had forwarded the list of the concerned students to the Social Welfare Department to get scholarship of the said students and tuition fee. The Social Welfare Department had released the scholarship amount including the tuition fee to the said Academy and the said amount was deposited in the account of the present applicant, the owner of the said Academy. After completion of the Investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant.
Heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar with Mr. Balvinder Singh, learned Brief Holders for the State.
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; he was not named in the First Information Report; he was authorized to run Admission and Information Centre on behalf of Manav Bharti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 18.03.2010; a bare perusal of the said letter dated 18.03.2010 would reveal that the Centre of the applicant, namely, N Power Academy, was authorized to receive the payment in favour of the said University in Bank Draft mode only; the said Academy was running in the building of Ashok Kumar Gupta; the job of the applicant’s Academy was only to do counseling of students for their course options; the scholarship amounts were paid to the students concerned; the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court; none of the concerned students has filed any First Information Report against the applicant; the present matter is based only on the submissions of Anupama Thakur, the then Registrar of Manav Bharti Vishwa Vidyalaya, Solan, Himachal Pradesh; Anupama Thakur is in judicial custody in a criminal case, filed in Himachal Pradesh; the applicant has no criminal history, and, he is ready to deposit Rs.50 lakhs before the authority concerned.
Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar, learned Brief Holder for the State, opposed the bail application and submitted that during the investigation, evidence are found against the present applicant; the present applicant was the owner of N Power Academy; the said Academy was found to be fictitious Academy; the Academy of the applicant was not given recognition by the said University; a sum of amount of Rs. 2,59,20,300/- was released by the Social Welfare Department to the present applicant; the said amount was deposited in the Bank Account of the present applicant; the said amount was embezzled by the applicant; the applicant was absconding till the filing of the charge-sheet. She further submitted that earlier, the applicant had filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and, in that matter, the applicant had requested ten days’ time to surrender before the Trial Court. The said application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was decided accordingly. But, the applicant again moved an application and requested further ten days’ time to surrender before the court concerned, but, the applicant did not surrender. Therefore, the process under Section 82 and Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued against the present applicant. She further submitted that there is no parity between the case of the present applicant and the co-accused persons, because, the applicant was the owner of the said Academy and the scholarship amount was deposited in his bank account.
Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario, and, therefore certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. In Gian Chand and others vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 420, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases or between two accused in the same case. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect.
It is true that Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers very wide power regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court is guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, the possibility of the tampering with the evidence and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration.
In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004)7 SCC 528, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind.
In the case of State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail, are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence, (ii) nature and gravity of charge, (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail, (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated, (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
In determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. While dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie considering why bail is being granted particularly where an accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order dehors reasons suffers from non-application of mind as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others, (2002)3 SCC 598.
In Niranjan Hem Chandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013)4 SCC 642, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered; and the only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with constitutional morality. The emphasis was on intolerance to any kind of corruption bereft of its degree.
In Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018)16 SCC 299, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the cancer of corruption has, as we all know, eaten into the vital organs of the State. Cancer is a dreaded disease which, if not nipped in the bud in time, causes death.
In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2014 (1) CCSC 120, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed unfortunately, in the last few year, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure. In controvertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole.
The Society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail, because every criminal offence is the offence against the society. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. This is a matter for trial.
Admittedly, the scholarship amount was released to N Power Academy. The present applicant was the owner of the said Academy. The scholarship amount was deposited in the Bank account of the present applicant. During the investigation, evidence are found against the applicant. According to the evidence, found during the investigation, the said scholarship amount was embezzled by the applicant. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no good ground has been made out for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage. Therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected. Consequently, the bail application is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision, in the light of the facts, provided by the parties at this stage, as to whether the bail application should be allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.