Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception: High Court of Uttarakhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 28th MAY 2021 …Applicant Between: Rakesh Kumar Panwar and State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raj Kumar Singh learned counsel. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. T. C. Agarwal learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. V. S. Rathore learned Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma J. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.1020 registered with Police Station Dalanwala District Dehradun for the offence punishable under Sections 420 409 467 468 471 and 120 B of IPC. According to the FIR dated 02.07.2020 in the scholarship scam the informant Inspector Chandra Bhan 2 Singh Adhikari was a member of the Special Investigation Team. After enquiry the informant lodged an FIR against Shobhit University Adarsh Area Gangoh District Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh. Heard Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raj Kumar Singh the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T. C. Agarwal learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. V. S. Rathore learned Brief Holder the State through video Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the FIR was lodged against Shobhit University the applicant is not the Owner Director of the Shobhit University the applicant is the Director of Shakumbhari Para Medical College and Research Centre Badshahi Bag District Saharanpur Shobhit University authorized the applicant to start its own extension centre at the premises of Shakumbhari Group of Institute the applicant never demanded any scholarship from the District Social Welfare Officer Dehradun an amount of Rs.69 73 100 was deposited the account of Shakumbhari Para Medical College and Research Centre on 15.09.2015 but on 22.03.20107 the same was returned back by the applicant to Shobhit University and Shobhit University also returned back that amount to the District Social Welfare Department prior lodging the FIR the applicant never prepared any forged document a co accused Ranbir Singh has been granted stay arrest by this High Court the applicant is in custody since 06.01.2021 charge sheet has been submitted therefore there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. accused. Mr. T. C. Agarwal the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed the bail application however he fairly admitted that the applicant has returned all the disputed amount i.e. Rs.69 73 100 before lodging the 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 Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period therefore without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant 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 with the following conditions : i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment 4 ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. ALOK KUMAR VERMA J. Dt: 28th May 2021 

Summary: Bail is the rule in most cases and refusing bail would be violating the personal liberty of the accused. A single-member bench consisting of Justice Alok Kumar Varma while adjudicating the case of Rakesh Kumar Panwar v State of Uttarakhand [First Bail Application no: 282 of 2021] on the 28th of May 2021, dealt with the granting of bail to a person accused in a high profile scholarship scam. A First Information Report was lodged on 2nd July 2020 by an informant, Inspector Chandra Bhan Singh Adhikari against Shobhit University, Saharanpur, and Uttar Pradesh with in relation to the alleged scholarship scam. The Applicant’s counsel contended that his client, Rakesh Kumar Panwar was not the director of the entire Shobhit University, but only of the Shakumbhari Para Medical College and Research Centre. The applicant was authorised by Shobit University to open his own extension centre at the premise of Shakumbari Group of Institute. The applicant also contended that he never requested any scholarship from the university and in fact any funds which had been credited to the Shakumbari Para Medical College were returned by him before the FIR was lodged and furthermore that since the charge sheet had already been filed there was no scope for any evidence to be tampered with now. The respondent opposed the any bail, however conceded that all the disputed money had been returned by the applicant before the FIR was filed. Considering the facts of the case, the Uttarakhand High Court pointed out that in most cases, bail should be granted unless the accused is likely to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Additionally the court also mentioned that the actual purpose of detaining an accused person is not punishment but simply ensuring that that his attendance is secured. The court saw no reason not to grant bail to the accused based on the conditions that he attends trial court regularly, does not cause any unnecessary adjournment and does not attempt to induce, promise or threaten any person who is related to the case or the alleged scholarship scam.