CUTTACK: A special court here on Wednesday granted bail to former State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) director Manoj Kumar Padhy, holding that his continued detention in the school textbook error case would amount to “pretrial punishment” when the prosecution had yet to establish any prima facie personal gain or criminal benefit.
Padhy, arrested by the Crime Branch on July 13 in connection with the controversial publication of error-ridden school textbooks, had challenged the rejection of his bail plea by the JMFC-III Cuttack, on July 14. He faces allegations of criminal negligence, conspiracy and criminal breach of trust for allegedly approving print-ready manuscripts without ensuring proper factual verification.
Holding that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence and that the investigation has substantially progressed, the special court presided by additional special judge Sarojini Pati on Tuesday said, “Further detention of the accused will no way help the prosecution.”
Accordingly, the Special Court directed Padhy to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 1 lakh with two solvent sureties. The court imposed several conditions, including surrender of his passport, restriction on travel outside Odisha without prior permission, cooperation with investigators, and a direction not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The court took note of Padhy’s three-decade career, observing that his elevation to the post of director suggested there had been no serious allegations regarding his integrity in the past. It further observed that he was neither a member of any committee that developed or reviewed the textbooks and that the preparation of school books was “team work”, making it inappropriate to place the entire responsibility on him alone.
While allowing the bail plea, the Special Court observed that while Odisha had suffered an estimated financial loss of Rs 175 crore and national embarrassment, “the loss and damage sustained by 46 lakh students is a matter of concern which can never be compensated.”
The court, however, noted that the investigation had not produced any material indicating that Padhy had personally benefited from the alleged irregularities. “Till date, not a single scrap of paper has been submitted by the prosecution to prove what benefit or pleasure the accused has derived,” the order said, adding that investigators had not even attempted to verify any suspicious financial transactions involving the accused or his family.