Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... on 14 May, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4497 of 2018
Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari
Respondent :- Central Bureau Of Investigation, Dehradoonn
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar,Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Gyan Prakash
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned counsel appearing for CBI on bail application. Perused the record.
By the judgement and order dated 31.7.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act (CBI), Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, the accused-appellant has been convicted in Special Case No. 42 of 2011, arising out of R.C. No. 0072006A0011, P.S. C.B.I., District Dehradoon and sentenced for the offence under section 120-B IPC, for seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, for the offence under section 420/511 IPC, for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-, for the offence under section 467 IPC, for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the offence under section 468 IPC, for seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and for the offence under section 471 IPC, for two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-.
Submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The fact of the case is that accused-appellant was simply an employee/servant of one Moti Lal Goel, who was involved in land purchasing and selling cases. Now, Moti Lal Goel is no more. The allegation against accused-appellant is only of doing pairvi on behalf of Late Moti Lal Goel using fake documents regarding change of official record, which was not possible without help of public authority. No such public authority has either been charge sheeted or tried. Further submission is that accused-appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. Accused-appellant is in jail since 30.7.2018, he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.
Learned counsel appearing for C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant after appreciating evidence on record. He has also submitted that the accused-appellant was holder of power of attorney of Late Moti Lal Goel. There was active participation of accused-appellant in using fake documents with regard to change of official records.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that any public witness has not been examined and also that there is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a case for bail during pendency of appeal.
Let the appellant-Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari convicted in Special Case No. 42 of 2011, arising out of R.C. No. 0072006A0011, under Sections 120-B, 420/511, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. C.B.I., District Dehradoon, be released on bail during pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
So far as sentence of fine is concerned, on depositing 50% of fine, the remaining fine shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal. 50% fine shall be deposited within a month from receipt of this order.
As soon as personal bond and sureties are furnished, after keeping photostat copies of the same, original copies are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith from the trial court.
List the appeal for hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 14.5.2019
RCT/-
