TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....priation of government scholarship funds on large scale with complicity of officials working in the Education department, Central Government, Banks and private institutions. 2(i). An FIR No.133 of 2018 was registered on 16.11.2018 at Police Station East, Shimla. FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the State Project Officer, State Project Monitoring and New Initiative Unit, Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. It was alleged in the FIR that various complaints were received in the Education Department regarding non-receipt of scholarships by the students under the State and Centrally Sponsored Schemes for SC/ST/OBC/MC students. Preliminary inquiry conducted by the State Project Officer revealed mis-appropriation of scholarship funds on large scale with complicity of officials working in the Education Department, Central Government, Banks and Private Institutions. It was further alleged in the FIR that income/caste certificates of students were not verified and did not appear to be genuine. Through single application, disbursement of scholarships under two different categories of SC & ST also came to light. Many loopholes were detected in 'hp-e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs.29.80 crores by nine other institutions (NIELIT/ITI in Himachal Pradesh) was filed on 30.05.2022. 2(iv) During investigation, it came out that the Apex institute had dishonestly claimed an amount of Rs.3.79 crores for the students of SC/ST/OBC category from the Directorate of Higher Education Government of Himachal Pradesh. An amount of Rs.36.66 crores was dishonestly claimed by Himalayan Group of Professional Institute. It was also revealed in the investigation that none of the students shown to have been enrolled in these Institutions, were admitted in the institutions. 3. Alleged role of petitioner :- Petitioner was the Vice chairman of Apex Institute as well as Himalayan Group of Professional Institute, Kala amb, Himachal Pradesh. He was actively involved in the affairs of the institutes. In conspiracy with Mr. Rajneesh Bansal-the Chairman of the institutions, he had dishonestly claimed scholarship amounts from the Directorate of Education, Himachal Pradesh causing huge loss to the Government exchequer. A lot of irregularities and forgeries were committed for obtaining the false scholarship of the students, who had not even studied in the institutions in question. Fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tutes i.e. K.C. Group of Institutions Pandoga, District Una and K.C. Group of Institutions Nawanshehar, Punjab, NIELIT/ITIs in Himachal Pradesh, Apex Institute of Management Indri Karnal and Himalayan Group of Professinkal Institute Kala-Amb, H.P. Pace of investigation in the case is very slow. The CBI is yet to investigate dozens of private institutes. Petitioner cannot be incarcerated in custody for an uncertain period of time which may traverse to years together. 5(ii) The alleged role of the petitioner is limited only in the capacity as Vice Chairman of Apex Institute of Management & Himalayan Group of Professional Institute. The investigation in respect of these institutes is complete and chargesheet stands filed. Under these circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted. 5(iii) Petitioner ever since registration of FIR in 2018 has been participating and co operating in the investigation by the CBI. He remained in police remand for three days. It was at the instance of the CBI itself that petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 11.4.2022. This fact itself is an indication that the investigation vis-a-vis the petitioner is complete. 5(iv) Citing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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. 7(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. The petitioner was arrested on 8.4.2022. He remained in police custody till 10.4.2022. At the instance of CBI, he was sent to judicial custody on 11.4.2022. 7(ii) 22/26 private institutes were to be investigated by the CBI for unearthing illegal disbursement of post-matric scholarship funds amounting to Rs. 2,09,93,53,223/- by private educational institutions, out of which, at present, investigation into K.C. Group of Institutions, Pandoga, District Una for misappropriation of scholarship amount of Rs. 13.19 crore and investigation into K.C. Group of Institution Nawanshehar, Punjab for misappropriation of scholarship amount of Rs. 11.33 crore has been completed. Investigation in respect of mis- appropriation of scholarship amount of Rs. 29.80 Crores in nine institutions (NIELIT/ITI) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate 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. 7(v) (3) In (2013) 7 SCC 439, titled Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, Hon'ble Apex Court held that economic offences need to be visited with different approach. It was held as under vide paras 34 and 35:- "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the large....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held that it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the constitution that any person should be punished in respect of a matter, on which he has not been convicted and should be deprived of his liberty only on the belief that he will temper with witnesses if set free save in extraordinary circumstances. Seriousness of charge is not the only factor to be considered while deciding the bail petitions. Paras 21 to 24, 39 and 46 of the judgment are as under:- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed). This court cannot dispute the fact that petitioner has been a strong Finance Minister and Home Minister and presently, Member of Indian Parliament. He is respectable member of the Bar Association of Supreme Court of India. He has long standing in BAR as a Senior Advocate. He has deep root in the Indian Society and may be some connection in abroad. But, the fact that he will not influence the witnesses directly or indirectly, cannot be ruled out in view of above facts. Moreover, the investigation is at advance stage, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail." 29. FIR was registered by the CBI on 15.05.2017. The appellant was granted interim protection on 31.05.2018 till 20.08.2019. Till the date, there has been no allegation regarding influencing of any witness by the appellant or his men directly or indirectly. In the number of remand applications, there was no whisper that any material witness has been approached not to disclose information about the appellant and his son. It appears that only at the time of opposing the bail and in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI before the High Court, the averments were made that "....the appellant is trying to influence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been filed against the appellant and other co-accused on 18.10.2019. The appellant is in custody from 21.08.2019 for about two months. The co-accused were already granted bail. The appellant is said to be aged 74 years and is also said to be suffering from age related health problems. Considering the above factors and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be granted bail." 7(v)(7) In 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1549, titled P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, after taking note of various precedents, it was deduced that basic jurisprudence relating to a bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. Irrespective of nature and gravity of charge, the ultimate consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of accused to stand trial. Para 23 of the judgment reads as under:- "23. Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....66 crores respectively. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had joined the investigation right from the year 2019 onwards as and when called by the respondent-CBI. He was arrested on 8.4.2022 and remanded to police custody. It was at the instance of the CBI that he was sent to judicial custody on 11.4.2022. The fact itself leads to an inference that investigation required to be carried out from him has been completed. Admittedly, no application was thereafter moved by the CBI seeking his police remand. During hearing of the case, it was stated that entire investigation in respect of this institute is complete and chargesheet in this regard has already been filed. 7(vii) 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 the private educational institutes is completed, regarding timeline of which, respondent apparently has no clue. Even in cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he was sent to judicial custody on 11.4.2022. CBI has not moved any application seeking his police remand. 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. Therefore, present bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) with two local sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Special Judge (CBI)/CJM, Shimla, subject to the following conditions:- (i). Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, shall join the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when called by the Investigating Agency in accordance with law. (ii). Petitioner in any case will report to the Trial Court and the investigating officer, once in a fortnight till the investigation in the case is completed in entirety. ....