Bombay High Court
Rajesh Ranjan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
19-IA-1231-2022-w-IA-1230-2022-in- APEAL-389-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1231 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1230 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2022
Rajesh Ranjan ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
....
Mr. Madhukar P. Dalvi Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Kuldeep Patil, Special P.P. for the Respondent No.2- CBI.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 26th APRIL, 2022.
PER COURT:
1. These are applications for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.389 of
2022.
2. The applicant has been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, r/w 419, 420 384 of Indian Penal
Code (for short "IPC") and Section 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The maximum sentence of imprisonment
has been imposed for a period of three years.
Digitally signed
by SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
JAMADAR
LIYAKAT Date: Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 4
JAMADAR 2022.04.28
13:15:34
+0530
19-IA-1231-2022-w-IA-1230-2022-in- APEAL-389-2022.doc
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant
had received the genuine notice from the CBI and the accused
represented him that they were settled the dispute.
4. The complainant approached the applicant and took
him to the co-accused who impersonated himself as the CBI Officer
and the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was taken from him.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant
is that the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is for a
period of three years. The applicant was on bail during the trial.
There is no adverse report about misuse of facility of bail. The
appeal may not reach for hearing immediately. The fine amount
has been deposited. The applicant has not impersonated himself as
CBI officer. The alleged role attributed to the applicant is that he
took the complainant to the co-accused.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that
there is sufficient evidence to show that the applicant and the
co-accused had acted in connivance with each other. One more
case is registered and pending against the applicant.
7. It is noted that the sentence is of three years. The
appeal has been admitted. The appeal may not reach for hearing
immediately. The applicant was on bail during the trial.
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 4
19-IA-1231-2022-w-IA-1230-2022-in- APEAL-389-2022.doc
Considering these circumstances, sentence of imprisonment can be
suspended and the bail can be granted to the applicant.
8. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i. Interim Application No. 1231 of 2022 and 1230 of
2022 are allowed;
ii. During the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.389 of
2022, the sentence of imprisonment imposed vide Judgment
and order dated 08th February, 2022 passed by learned Special
Judge, CBI, CBI Special Court, Gr. Bombay in CBI Special Case
No. 68 of 2013 is suspended and the applicant is directed to
be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
iii. The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- for a period of eight weeks in lieu of
surety.
iv. The applicant shall attend the trial Court once in six
months on first Saturday of the month till the final disposal of
the appeal;
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 4
19-IA-1231-2022-w-IA-1230-2022-in- APEAL-389-2022.doc
v. In the event, there are two consecutive defaults in
attending the trial Court, the said fact may be brought to the
notice of this Court and in such eventuality, the prosecution
will be at liberty to prefer an application for cancellation of
bail.
vi. Both Interim Applications are disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 4
