VIVEK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Vivek Sharma has sought his release on bail in connection with FIR No.496 of 2018 under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of IPC at P.S. SIDCUL, District Haridwar. It is alleged in the FIR that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted for examining the irregularities in usurping the amount of scholarship by various self financed institutions. It was also found that the institutions usurped the government money by benefitting themselves and have caused wrongful loss to the State exchequer. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that the applicant has been falsely implicated; the concerned institute has disbursed the scholarship in favour of SC/ ST students as per the guidelines; and no government money was embezzled by the petitioner's institution. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that a sum of Rs.2,16,38,000/- (two crore sisteen lakh and thirty eight thousand) was released in favour of the concerned institute but no amount was released in favour of the students. He also argued that considering the gravity of offence, the applicant does not deserve bail.

(2.) During the course of hearing of bail application, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant drew my attention to a chart shown at page no.52 of the paper book, and argued that the concerned institute, in the academic session 2013-14, received a sum of Rs.16.25 lakh, out of Rs.15.10 lakh was distributed among the SC/ST students and the remaining amount of Rs.1.15 lakh was returned to the government. From the said Chart, it is clear that it relates to academic session 2013-14 only. That apart, the chart does not show whether the said amount was actually distributed to the students. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant again furnished the list of students pertaining to the academic session 2013-14. As per the list, total 350 students were enrolled in the academic session 2013-14 in the said institute under different streams. During the course of arguments, learned State Counsel, argued that although, the said list was not furnished to him but after receiving the same, he got it examined from the concerned I.O. The I.O. also appeared before the Court and apprised that he could record the statements of some of students mentioned in the said list viz. Papin Kumar (Sl. No.60), Pawan Kumar (Sl. No.62), Km. Pooja Rani (Sl. No.121), Pawan Kumar (Sl. No.259), Rajveer Singh (Sl. No.341) and Vipin Kumar (Sl. No.349). Those students have categorically stated in their statements that none of them has received any amount of scholarship from the concerned Institute. For the list pertaining to academic session 2013-14, although the numbers of payment vouchers have been given but it does not reflect whether the payment was actually made in favour of the concerned students. It was also found during investigation that no such scholarship was distributed in favour of the students concerned.

(3.) That apart, as per Clause 8 of G.O. dated 25th July, 2006, the payment was required to be made either through a 'payee cheque' or through 'bank advice' but in the present case, no such amount was transmitted in favour of the students belonging to the minority sections. Looking to the gravity of offence, the amount of public money embezzled which was meant for the weaker sections of society (SC/ ST students) and also considering other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is, thus, rejected. Needless to observe that the observations, made hereinabove, will not have any affect on the final merits of the trial.