Bombay High Court
Vinay Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr on 22 December, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 1-i-ia-4058-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4058 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1172 OF 2022
Vinay Kumar ..... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. .... Respondents
-----
Mr. Sujit B. Shelar, Advocate a/w. Ms. Anna Oommen, for the
Applicant.
Mr. Shriram Shirsat, Counsel for the Respondent No.1-UOI.
Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail as well as for
suspension of conviction. Prayer clause (b) is for suspension
of conviction. Since there are different considerations for
suspension of conviction in cases involving Prevention of
Corruption Act, the learned counsel for the applicant does
not press prayer clause (b) at this stage. Therefore, I have
only considered this application for prayer clause (a) for
suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant on bail
1 of 4
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 1-i-ia-4058-2022.odt
during pendency of the appeal preferred by him.
2. Heard Shri Sujit Shelar, the learned counsel for
the applicant, Shri Shriram Shirsat, the learned Counsel for
the respondent No.1 and Smt. M.R. Tidke, the learned APP
for the respondent No.2.
3. The applicant was the original accused No.13 in
CBI Special Case No.24/2005 along with CBI Special Case
No.4/2006 before the Special Judge for CBI at Greater
Mumbai. Vide judgment and order dated 2.11.2022, the
applicant was convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to
suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5 Lakhs and in
default of payment of fine to suffer RI for three months.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that the prosecution case is that the applicant was posted as
an Assessor with Export Oriented Unit Department, EOU,
Customs, Mumbai and his job was only to verify whether the
valuations mentioned in the documents were proper or not.
2 of 4
:3: 1-i-ia-4058-2022.odt
He was not supposed to go to the actual spot i.e. Mumbai
Port and verify the goods physically. He submitted that the
applicant's duties did not include this particular aspect. He
submitted that PW-58 the Deputy Commissioner of Customs
has even described the duties of the applicant. This
deposition helps the applicant.
5. He further submitted that the sentence imposed
on the applicant is only for one year and the appeal is not
likely to be decided within that period. The applicant was
on bail during trial and he has not misused that liberty. Even
after his conviction, he was granted bail under Section 389
of Cr.P.C. for a limited period.
6. The learned Special Counsel for the respondent
No.1 - CBI opposed this application on merits, but, he
conceded that the sentence is short.
7. Considering these submissions, the applicant can
be released on bail particularly when the appeal is not likely
to be decided within a period of one year. Hence the
following order :
3 of 4
:4: 1-i-ia-4058-2022.odt
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.1172/2022, the applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. It is made clear that the payment of fine is not
stayed.
iii. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE
Date:
2022.12.23
10:39:06 +0530
Deshmane (PS)
4 of 4
