✦ High Court of India · 02 Apr 2025

St at e of Ut t arakhand v. Counsel for t he

Case Details High Court of India · 02 Apr 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
02 Apr 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,027 words

: Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocat e. Counsel for t he Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder. H o n ’ b l e A l o k Ku m a r Ve r m a ,J. The present Applicat ion has been filed by t he applicant- Manisha Singh, aged about 48 years, seeking ant icipat ory bail under Sect ions 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, Sect ion 120B of t he I ndian Penal Code, 1860 and Sect ion 7A of t he Prevent ion of Corrupt ion Act , 1988 in Case Crim e No.06 of 2020 ( Special Sessions Trial No.07 of 2023) , regist ered at Police St at ion Kunda, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar. 2 . As per t he FI R, in t he scholarship scam m at t er, a Special I nvest igat ion Team was const it ut ed in com pliance wit h t he order of t his Court , passed in Writ Pet it ion No.33 of 2019. I nspect or Bhim Bhaskar Arya 1 was a m em ber of t he said Special I nvest igat ion Team . The m at t er was enquired and aft er enquiry, an FI R was lodged against Shakum bari College, Mirpur, Saharanpur ( Ut t ar Pradesh) and co- accused. 3 . Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for t he applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e. 4 . Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocat e, cont ended t hat Shakum bari College, Mirpur, Saharanpur ( Ut t ar Pradesh) was run by Shakum bari Educat ion Societ y, a regist ered Society. The applicant was t he t reasurer of t he said Societ y. She has been falsely im plicat ed in t he present m at t er. The scholarship am ount s were never paid direct ly t o her I nst it ut e. I n Governm ent Order No.2077/ xvii- 4/ 20, dat ed

14.11.2014, ent ire responsibilit y of dist ribut ion of t he scholarship was assigned t o t he Dist rict Social Welfare Officer. Applicant or any official of t he said I nst it ut e had no role in opening and operat ing t he account s of t he concerned st udent s. Applicant had follow ed t he prescribed procedure in dist ribut ing t he scholarship. 5 . Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e has opposed t he ant icipat ory bail applicat ion. 6 . Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocat e, t he 2 applicant , has furt her subm it t ed t hat t he applicant is not a previous convict . She was grant ed int erim relief in WPCRL No.1740 of 2020, filed under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia t o quash t he First I nform at ion Report , and, charge- sheet has already been filed, t herefore, t here is no chance of t am pering wit h t he evidence. 7 . Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e subm it t ed on inst ruct ion t hat charge- sheet already subm it t ed, hence, cust odial int errogat ion of t he applicant is not required. 8 . Personal libert y under Art icle 21 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia is very precious fundam ent al right it should be curt ailed only when it becom es im perat ive according t o t he peculiar fact s and circum st ances of t he case. 9 . Having heard t he subm issions of learned counsel for t he part ies and keeping in view of t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, t he present Applicat ion, filed for ant icipat ory bail, is allowed. I t is direct ed t hat in t he event of arrest of t he applicant - Manisha Singh, she shall be released on ant icipat ory bail on execut ing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/ - and t wo reliable suret ies, each of t he like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he 3 Arrest ing Officer, subj ect t o t he following condit ions: - t he shall not t rial court seek any ( i) Applicant shall at t end regularly and unnecessary adj ournm ent ; ( ii) Applicant shall not direct ly or indirect ly m ake any inducem ent , t hreat or prom ise t o any person, acquaint ed wit h t he fact s of t his case. t he count ry ( iii) Applicant shall not wit hout t he previous perm ission of t he t rial court . 1 0 . I t is m ade clear t hat if t he applicant m isuses or violat es any of t he condit ions, im posed upon her, t he prosecut ion agency will be free t o m ove t he Court for cancellat ion of t he ant icipat ory bail. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK K UM A R VERM A , J. Dat ed: 02.04.2025 Pant / 4

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments