Bombay High Court
Sujit Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 January, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
3. Ia-3420-2021-in-Apeal-1059-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3420 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1059 OF 2021
Sujit Kumar Sinha ...Applicant/
Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/by Mr. Ayush Pasbola, Advocate for the
Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Harsh Dedhia i/by Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, Special P. P. for
CBI.
Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, PP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2022.
PER COURT:
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail pending the hearing and final disposal of the
appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the Judgment
and order dated 17th December, 2021 passed by the learned
Special Judge, CBI in CBI Special Case No.1 of 2016 convicting
the applicant for offences punishable under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of
Rs.5,000/-. He is also convicted for offences under Sections
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years with
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2022.01.07 Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 3
15:54:54
+0530
3. Ia-3420-2021-in-Apeal-1059-2021.doc
fine of Rs.5,000/-. Both the sentences were run concurrently.
2. The appeal challenging the conviction has been
admitted. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the applicant was on bail during the trial and he has not
misused the facility of bail. The applicant has good case on
merits. There are discrepancies in the evidence. The
evidence suffers from various contradictions and omissions.
The prosecution has not proved the charge beyond doubt.
The appeal may not come up for hearing within short span of
time and if the sentence is not suspended, the appeal would
become infructuous.
3. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.2
submitted that the accused has been prosecuted for the
aforesaid offences. On the basis of the evidence, the trial
Court has convicted him. The prosecution has adduced
scientific evidence which has supported the prosecution case.
The other witnesses have corroborated the prosecution case.
The offence is of serious nature. Loss has been caused to the
government.
4. As noted herein above, the appeal challenging
conviction is admitted and it would come up for hearing in
due course. The sentence imposed by the trial Court is four
years imprisonment. The appellant has urged that the trial
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 3
3. Ia-3420-2021-in-Apeal-1059-2021.doc
Court judgment suffers from serious infirmities and he has
good case on merits. The applicant was on bail during the
trial.
5. In view of the above, sentence of imprisonment
can be suspended and bail can be granted to the applicant.
ORDER
i. Interim Application No. 3420 of 2021 is allowed;
ii. Pending hearing and final disposal of criminal
appeal No. 1059 of 2021, sentence of imprisonment
awarded vide Judgment and order dated 17 th December,
2021 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Special Court,
in CBI Special Case No. 1 of 2016 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
security in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for a period of eight
weeks in lieu of surety.
iv. Interim Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 3
