2025:UHC:6051 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 14th JULY, 2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 767 of 2025 Affroz Qayum … Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another … Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate (through video conferencing). Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present Application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2019 (Criminal Case No. 1995 of 2021), registered at Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar under Section 409 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. According to the First Information Report dated 13.10.2019, a Special Investigation Team was constituted in the scholarship scam matter. Sub-Inspector Rajendra Singh Kohlia was a member of the said Special Investigation Team. He inquired the matter. He found that a sum of Rs.3,91,69,778/-, the scholarship amount, was released to Uttaratech Polytechnic, Dhanauri, Roorkee for the academic years 2012-13 to 2016-17. Fake admission of several students was shown by the institute and several other irregularities were also found in the inquiry. 1 2025:UHC:6051 3. Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate contended that the applicant is the Chairman of the educational institute, “Uttaratech Polytechnic, Dhanauri, Roorkee”. The said institute was run and managed by the applicant. The said institute headed by the applicant had admitted all the concerned students in respective Branches of approved Seats of Diploma in Engineering after adopting proper procedure with due approval from AICTE and the same is affiliated to the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, Roorkee. The said scholarship, which was released by the State Government, was either transferred in the accounts of the concerned students by the institute or part of the same was adjusted after computing the annual fee of respective students by issuing requisite receipts as per law. 5. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, further submitted that applicant was not arrested during the course of the investigation. He had deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in compliance with the interim order dated 26.02.2020, passed by this Court in WPCRL No. 2236 of 2019, filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the First Information Report. All the relevant documents were taken by the Investigating Officer from the said institute and charge-sheet has already been filed 2 2025:UHC:6051 before the Court, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. 6. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally. However, he submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. 7. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Affroz Qayum, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; 3 2025:UHC:6051 (ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case; (iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court. 9. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 14.07.2025 Shiv/ 4