Libertatem Magazine

Uttarakhand High Court Grants Bail to Individual Detained for Scholarship Scam

Contents of this Page

On 27th July 2020, Justice Alok Kumar Verma heard the case of Surjeet Singh v. the State of Uttarakhand, via video-conferencing. The Court granted bail to the applicant as there was no reason to keep him behind bars for an indefinite period.

Facts of the Case

This High Court passed an order in a Writ petition. It constituted a Special Investigation Team at District Level. This team looked into financial irregularity committed in the distribution of scholarship of the members of SC/ST/OBC students. On 01.02.2020, they lodged an FIR against two named co-accused and other unnamed persons.

During the investigation, the statements of alleged students were recorded. The students stated that they had not done any course from the said Institution nor did they receive any scholarship amount.

The present applicant was the intermediary. The police filed the charge sheet after investigation. The police filed the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. The applicant filed this bail application under Section 439 of the CRPC, 1973.

Arguments of the Applicant

The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is falsely implicated. Further, he is not named in the FIR. The applicant is not concerned with the alleged scholarship.

Besides, the applicant never received any consideration. He did not forge any document. The applicant was implicated in two other similar cases of the scholarship scam.
But, the High Court and the Sessions Judge had granted him bail for the two cases respectively.

Arguments of the Respondent

The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the bail application. Yet, he admitted that there is no clear evidence against the applicant that he forged any document. Moreover, there is no evidence that he converted any amount of scholarship for his use.

Court’s Analysis

The Court said that the bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. It added that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual.

This is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, punishment is not the aim of detaining the accused. The main purpose is to secure the attendance of the accused. After considering the present facts, it is clear that there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period.

Court’s Decision

The Court allowed the bail application. The applicant will be released on bail on his executing a personal bond. He should furnish two reliable sureties. The applicant must meet the following conditions:

i) the applicant must attend the Trial Court and he must not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) the applicant must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

The prosecution is free to move the Court for cancelling the bail if he violates conditions. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author