Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Vimal vs State Through C.B.I./A.C.B. ... on 4 February, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 92 of 2021
Appellant :- Om Prakash Vimal
Respondent :- State Through C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow
Counsel for Appellant :- Pranjal Krishna
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv P. Shukla
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
The Court convened through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special counsel for C.B.I. and perused the lower court record.
The present application for bail is filed on the behalf of the appellant to quash the judgement and order dated 24.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.2, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.12 of 2008 (State vs. Om Prakash Vimal) arising out of Crime No. RC0062007A0003 (RC 03(A) of 2007), under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B./Lucknow, District Lucknow, along with the further prayer to suspend the sentence awarded vide impugned order of conviction dated 24.12.2020 passed in Criminal Case No.12 of 2008 (State vs. Om Prakash Vimal).
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution was initiated on the amassing of disproportionate assets by the appellant. He further submitted that the applicant co-operated during the course of investigation and thereafter, charge sheet was filed and he was enlarged on bail and he never misused the liberty of bail. He further submitted that even the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct prospective and has been convicted the appellant under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him for the period of 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.14 Lakhs.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that statement of D.W.1 Rajendra Prasad Yadav was also not considered who categorically stated that Rs.11,00,000/- was given as advance and statement of his nephew namely Jai Krishna Yadav D.W.2. who categorically stated that he has given Rs.5,00,000/- advance. He further submitted that interim bail was granted by the court below, therefore, he is entitled for regular bail and he undertakes that he will argue the appeal whenever it will be listed.
Learned Special counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that learned trial court after appreciating all these evidence, convicted the appellant, but he does not dispute this fact that appellant was on bail during the course of trial and he was enlarged on interim bail vide judgment and order dated passed on 24.12.2020 and till today, he is on interim bail which was extended by this Court earlier.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Special counsel for C.B.I. and going through the lower court record, judgment passed by Special Judge C.B.I., Court No.2, Lucknow dated 24.12.2020 as well as other relevant documents annexed with the appeal and earlier order passed by this Court by which the interim bail granted by the court below was extended, as in near future there is no possibility of hearing of appeal due to pandemic Covid-19, therefore, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed.
Let the appellant - Om Prakash Vimal - be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.
The sentence of appellant awarded vide judgement and order dated 24.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.2, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.12 of 2008 (State vs. Om Prakash Vimal) arising out of Crime No. RC0062007A0003 (RC 03(A) of 2007), under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B./Lucknow, District Lucknow is stayed till the pendency of the appeal.
List this case in the second week of April, 2022 for final hearing.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it along with a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 4.2.2022
S. Shivhare
