2020 (9) TMI 1163 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail granted to government official accused of financial crimes involving scholarship funds.

The court granted bail to a government official accused of serious financial crimes, including siphoning scholarship funds. The court balanced the gravity ... Grant of regular bail - serious allegations of siphoning of student scholarship funds, cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct, forgery, conspiracy and corruption etc. are levelled against a government official - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that grant of bail involves judicious exercise of discretionary power of the Court, wherein not only the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, nature of evidence, apprehension of influencing the witnesses, tampering with evidence, possibility of accused standing the trial are some of the factors to be considered, but the valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of society in general also have to be balanced. r 5(i). In the instant case, FIR was registered on 16.11.2018. Pursuant to notification dated 20.03.2019, case was entrusted to CBI and was registered by it on 07.05.2019. Petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2020 and w.e.f. 08.01.2020, he is in judicial custody. Present is not a case where multiple FIRs were registered with respect to different institutes. One FIR has been registered involving all the private educational institutes. To obviate the compulsion under Section 167(2) Cr.PC, final report has been presented on 30.03.2020 under Section 173(2) Cr.PC only regarding K.C. Group of Institutions, Pandoga, District Una by keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. - Even in this challan, twelve persons have been named as accused, out of which six belong to Directorate of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, including the petitioner. Five accused persons, who were Drawing & Disbursing Officers posted in different capacities in the Directorate of Higher Education at the relevant time and responsible for various transactions in issue, have not been arrested. This is despite the fact that all of them are facing the same FIR for the same offences and it has been alleged that all of them had conspired together. Hon'ble Apex Court in [2013 (5) TMI 920 - Supreme Court], titled Nimmajadda Prasad Versus CBI, while observing that white collar crimes were on the rise affecting development of the country as a whole, held that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment on conviction, character of accused, circumstances peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with, larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations. At this stage, it is not necessary to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Economic offences need to be viewed seriously. Present is a case where 22 institutes are involved in one FIR and not in multiple FIRs. Charge-sheet under the FIR qua one of the institute already stands filed through by keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. This was to obviate the compulsion under Section 167(2) Cr.PC. - Even if present is a case of socio-economic offence of serious magnitude and respondent may have strong evidence about involvement of the petitioner, yet 'gravity can only beget length of sentence' provided in law, after the trial. Grant of bail cannot be thwarted merely by asserting that offence is grave and therefore, petitioner should remain in custody till the investigation of all 22 private educational institutes is completed, regarding timeline of which, respondent apparently has no clue. The offending acts are already complete and reflected as such in the records. As per status report, voluminous record has already been seized by CBI during raids conducted by it in 22 private institutes, though investigation is still going on. In such situation, no purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody - Investigation should not be carried out indefinitely and forever without any regard to time, considering the interests of all involved. Nonetheless it is open to the respondent to continue to investigate into the matter, however, for this reason, petitioner cannot be permitted to incarcerate as a pre-trial prisoner. His liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is also required to be protected. It cannot be presumed that petitioner will flee justice or will influence the investigation/witnesses. No material in support of these apprehensions has been placed on record. As per status report, CBI has already conducted searches at 22 private educational institutions and seized voluminous physical and electronic record. Premises of petitioner have also been searched. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 03.01.2020. He has already been suspended from government service. It is not disputed that he is a local resident and owns immovable properties in the State. The apprehensions expressed by respondent can be taken care of while imposing conditions for enlargement on bail. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, continued custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary Enlargement of petitioner on bail subject to stringent conditions will not pose any threat to society. The present bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed. Issues Involved:1. Grant of regular bail to a government official accused of serious financial crimes.2. Allegations and evidence against the petitioner.3. Status and progress of the investigation.4. Discriminatory treatment in the arrest of accused persons.5. Legal principles and precedents regarding bail in economic offences.Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Regular Bail to a Government Official Accused of Serious Financial Crimes:The primary issue in this bail petition is whether a government official accused of serious financial crimes, including siphoning of student scholarship funds, should be granted regular bail. The petitioner argued that the investigation by the CBI is taking an indefinite amount of time, potentially stretching over years, and that he should not be incarcerated for such an extended period. The court acknowledged the need to balance the gravity of the accusations with the right to personal liberty.2. Allegations and Evidence Against the Petitioner:The petitioner, a Superintendent Grade-II in the Scholarship Branch of the Directorate of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, is accused of approving fraudulent scholarship claims and receiving bribes. The status report revealed that the petitioner processed false scholarship proposals without proper verification, conspired with private institutions, and received a 10% bribe from one such institution. Additionally, his wife was allegedly involved in a company that benefited from the misappropriated funds.3. Status and Progress of the Investigation:The FIR was registered on 16.11.2018 and entrusted to the CBI on 20.03.2019. The investigation is institution-wise, with 22 private educational institutions under scrutiny. As of now, the investigation of one institution (K.C. Group of Institutions, Pandoga) has been completed, and a charge-sheet has been filed. However, the investigation into the remaining institutions is ongoing, with no clear timeline for completion. The court noted that the CBI has taken about a year and a half to investigate just one institution.4. Discriminatory Treatment in the Arrest of Accused Persons:The petitioner argued that the investigation is discriminatory, as other officials from the Directorate of Higher Education, who are also accused in the same FIR, have not been arrested. The court observed that five other officials facing the same charges were not taken into custody, despite being responsible for similar acts. This selective arrest was a significant factor in the court's decision to grant bail to the petitioner.5. Legal Principles and Precedents Regarding Bail in Economic Offences:The court referred to several precedents, emphasizing that while socio-economic offences require a different approach, the right to personal liberty must be protected. Notable cases cited include State of Bihar vs. Amit Kumar, Nimmajadda Prasad vs. CBI, and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI. The court reiterated that the seriousness of the charge is not the sole factor in deciding bail and that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the CBI's apprehensions about the petitioner tampering with evidence or absconding were not substantiated with concrete evidence.Conclusion:The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, regular reporting to the trial court, surrendering his passport, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court emphasized that the observations made were solely for the purpose of adjudicating the bail petition and should not influence the trial's outcome. The petition was disposed of, along with any pending miscellaneous applications.