Allahabad High Court
Chaman Prakash Kashyap vs State Of U.P Thru C.B.I / A.C.B ... on 15 May, 2018
Bench: Mahendra Dayal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 305 of 2018
Appellant :- Chaman Prakash Kashyap
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru C.B.I / A.C.B Lucknow
Counsel for Appellant :- Nandit Kumar Srivastava,Aishwarya Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Bireshwar Nath
Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
(Crl. Misc. Application No.18703 of 2018)
Heard Shri Nandit Kumar Srivastva, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for CBI.
The appellant has filed ten separate criminal appeals, having been separately convicted for the offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (c) and (v) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 & 477-A IPC.
It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed in ten different criminal cases, the appellant has preferred criminal appeal challenging the validity of order of conviction. It has further been submitted that initially the FIR was lodged against the Postmaster and Sub Postmaster of the Post Office. During the course of investigation the Investigating Agency exonerated all those named accused but impleaded the appellant, who was serving as counter clerk and he had no concern with the alleged occurrence. It has also been submitted that maximum period of sentence of the appellant is 5 years for each of the offences along-with fine and the appellant has already spent more than 3 years in jail. It has also been submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and it has not been reported that the appellant ever misused the liberty of bail.
The bail plea has been vehemently opposed by Shri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the CBI and it has been argued that the appellant has caused loss to the tune of over two crores rupees by making re-withdrawal of the amount in respect of which payment had already been made and the trial court after appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding that the charges against the appellant were proved beyond doubt. In these circumstances, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. However, it has not been disputed that out of maximum period of sentence, he has spent more than three years in jail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts that the appellant has served more than half of the sentence awarded to him, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
Let the appellant Chaman Prakash Kashyap be released on bail during pendency of Appeal in Crl. Case No. 45 of 2007, under Sections 409, 477-A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The realization of fine shall remain stayed till further order of this Court.
Order Date :- 15.5.2018
Muk
