Court’s Decision:
The Uttarakhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a scholarship scam case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court observed that personal liberty is a precious right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and should only be restricted when absolutely necessary. The applicants were directed to be released on furnishing personal bonds of ₹30,000 each and two sureties of the same amount.
Facts:
- The case pertains to allegations against the office bearers of a trust operating the Shriram Institute of Technology in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, in connection with a scholarship scam.
- The allegations were that the applicants, who are office bearers of a registered trust, misappropriated scholarship funds meant for students.
- A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to probe the matter, leading to the registration of an FIR on 05.02.2020.
- The applicants included the Chairperson, Secretary, and Treasurer of the said trust.
- The trust had reportedly disbursed the scholarship to the intended students, and it was not the prosecution’s case that the scholarship amounts were transferred to the applicants’ private accounts.
Issues:
- Whether the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail despite the allegations of misappropriation of scholarship funds.
- Whether the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The applicants argued that they had not misappropriated any scholarship funds, and the disbursed amounts were received by the eligible students.
- They contended that they were permanent residents of Meerut and had no intention to abscond.
- The petitioners also highlighted that the charge sheet had already been filed, and there was no chance of tampering with the evidence.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The State opposed the anticipatory bail application but submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants was not necessary.
- The State argued that granting anticipatory bail might set a precedent, impacting the investigation of such financial crimes.
Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed the scope of granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and considered the principles enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of personal liberty. The court emphasized that the fundamental right to personal liberty should not be curtailed lightly, and any such restriction must be justified by the specific circumstances of the case.
Precedent Analysis:
No specific precedents were cited in the judgment. However, the court followed established principles concerning the granting of anticipatory bail in financial crimes, focusing on whether the custodial interrogation was necessary.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court observed that since the charge sheet had already been filed, and the applicants were not accused of diverting scholarship funds into their private accounts, their custodial interrogation was not required. The court highlighted that the State’s counsel had also conceded that there was no need for custodial interrogation. Given these circumstances, the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail with appropriate conditions to ensure their attendance at trial.
Conclusion:
The anticipatory bail was granted with the following conditions:
- Applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and not seek any unnecessary adjournment.
- Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.
- Applicants shall not leave the country without the trial court’s prior permission.
The court clarified that if any of the conditions were violated, the prosecution agency could move the court for the cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Implications:
The judgment emphasizes the importance of protecting personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and establishes that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases where the allegations do not justify custodial interrogation. This ruling could serve as a precedent for similar cases involving financial crimes, where the court has to balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring effective investigation.