Bombay High Court
J. J. Gowda vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 8-i.ia-362-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.362 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78 OF 2023
J.J. Gowda ..... Applicant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. .... Respondents
-----
Mr. Murtaza M. Khokhawala, Advocate a/w. Megha Puralkar,
for the Applicant.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Counsel a/w. Nikhil G. Hire, for
Respondent No.1-CBI.
Smt.M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final
disposal of the applicant's Criminal Appeal No.78/2023.
2. The applicant was convicted and sentenced by
the Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay vide his
judgment and order dated 20.12.2022 passed in CBI Special
Case No.9/2001. The applicant was the original accused
No.1. He was convicted for commission of offences
1 of 4
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 8-i.ia-362-23.odt
punishable under Section 120B read with 420 & Section 409
of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The major sentence
imposed on him was RI for one year besides imposition of
fine. There was another accused i.e. accused No.2 Ashok
Solanki. He was convicted and sentenced under different
counts.
3. Heard Mr. Murtaza Khokhawala, learned counsel
for the applicant, Shri Kuldeep Patil, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1-CBI and Smt.M.R. Tidke, learned APP for
the respondent No.2-State.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
at the relevant time, he was a Branch Manager of Canara
Bank, Dahisar (E) Branch. Some credit facilities were
extended to the accused No.2 and he misused those credit
facilities in transferring the funds from M/s. Jewellers
Kapoorchand Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Shah Kapoorchand & Sons
and from that account the money was siphoned off.
2 of 4
:3: 8-i.ia-362-23.odt
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the applicant was not the authorized person to sanction the
Credit Facility. The Credit Facility was sanctioned by the
Circle Office. Once the Credit Facility was sanctioned, the
applicant had no knowledge as to how the funds were
transferred from one account to the other. Therefore, it
cannot be said that he was in collusion or in conspiracy with
the other accused. He submitted that 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. The applicant is 75 year old. The appeal is not
likely to be decided in the near future.
6. Learned Special P.P. for the respondent No.1-CBI
opposed these submissions. But, he conceded that the
sentence imposed on the applicant is short and the appeal is
not likely to be decided within that period.
7. I have considered these submissions. The issues
raised by the learned counsel for the applicant will have to
be decided at the final hearing stage. The sentence imposed
3 of 4
:4: 8-i.ia-362-23.odt
is short and the appeal is not likely to be decided within that
period. The applicant is 75 years old person.
8. Considering all these aspects, the applicant can
be granted bail pending final disposal of the appeal. Hence,
the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.78/2023, 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. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE
Date:
2023.02.07
10:23:58 +0530
Deshmane (PS)
4 of 4
