Sunita Chaudhary vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for Anticipatory Bail under Sections 409, 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the Case Crime No.88 of 2020 (Criminal Case No.5467 of 2021), registered at police station Dalanwala, District Dehradun.

A Special Investigation Team was constituted in the scholarship scam matter. Mr. Rohit Kumar, the Sub-Inspector, was a member of the said Special Investigation Team. He enquired the matter and lodged an FIR on 14.06.2020. The First Information Report was lodged against the Manager – Owner of the Educational Institutes, namely, D.R.P.M.E., Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh), Dr. Rajendra Prasad Polytechnic Sundarpur, Saharanpur, D.C.E. College of Education, D.C.E.T. Saharanpur, D.C.T.C. Sundarpur, Saharanpur, Doon College of Law and Doon College, Ganeshpur.

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for State.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that the applicant - Smt. Sunita Chaudhary has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The said Institutes were run by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Educational Society, Saharanpur. The applicant was the treasurer of the said Society. Her job was only to maintain the accounts of the Society. She had no role in distribution of the scholarship. She was not authorised to make any financial transactions. She was not arrested during the course of the investigation. She was granted interim relief by this Court in WPCRL No.136 of 2021, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Applicant is not a previous convict. She is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no possibility of her absconding. The present matter rests on the documentary evidence and all the documentary evidence have been filed by the Investigating Officer along with charge-sheet.

Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder appearing for State, has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally. However, he submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant – Sunita Chaudhary is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of her arrest, on furnishing her personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and she 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 her, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No.549 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.