High Court Grants Default Bail in Scholarship Scam Case

The High Court granted default bail to the applicant in connection with FIR No.68 of 2019, involving a scholarship scam and embezzlement of funds. The court emphasized the applicant's right to default bail after the investigation period lapsed without a charge sheet. The High Court stressed the importance of personal liberty, directing the applicant to fulfill specific conditions, including providing sureties and cooperating with the investigation. Violation of bail terms could lead to prosecution seeking bail cancellation, underscoring the need for compliance to maintain the granted bail status.

---

---

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.68 of 2019 involving multiple IPC sections.

Analysis:
1. The bail application was filed in connection with FIR No.68 of 2019, which involved allegations related to a scholarship scam and embezzlement of funds amounting to Rs. 39,52,000. A Special Investigation Team was formed following a High Court order, leading to the filing of the FIR against the applicant and other co-accused individuals.

2. The applicant applied for "default bail" during the pendency of the regular bail application, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate citing a Supreme Court order dated 23.03.2020 regarding the extension of limitation periods due to the Covid-19 situation. The applicant challenged this rejection before the High Court.

3. The Supreme Court orders dated 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 extended the limitation period for certain statutory provisions but did not explicitly mention investigations. The High Court emphasized that these orders are binding on all courts, and no court has the authority to interpret them to cover police investigations.

4. Citing the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) and Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra (2001), the High Court acknowledged that an accused has an indefeasible right to default bail if the investigation period lapses without filing a charge sheet. The applicant, in this case, had moved for default bail after the statutory period had expired.

5. The High Court reiterated that when an application for bail on default is filed, the merits of the case should not be delved into, as established by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Thamisharasi and others (1995). The fundamental right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution should only be curtailed according to law.

6. After considering arguments from both sides, the High Court granted default bail to the applicant, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty. The applicant was directed to execute a personal bond, provide two sureties, and adhere to specific conditions, including making himself available for interrogation and not leaving the state without court permission.

7. The High Court clarified that any violation of the bail conditions could result in the prosecution moving for bail cancellation, highlighting the need for the applicant to comply with the set terms to maintain the granted bail status.

---