Bombay High Court
Hakam Chand Mendiratta vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 19-ia-147-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2023
Hakam Chand Mendiratta ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Ms. Paavani Chadha for Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
Mr. Aayush Kedia i/b. H. S. Venegavkar for Respondent No.2/CBI.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 8 FEBRUARY 2023
PC :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
Appeal. The Applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.31 of
2023 before this Court challenging the Judgment and order dated
19/12/2022 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI in CBI Special
case No.92 of 2012. The Applicant was convicted for commission
of offence punishable U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to
suffer S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in
Digitally
default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two months. The
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2023.02.09
12:44:13
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 4 19-ia-147-23
applicant was acquitted from the charges U/s.13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d)
of the P.C. Act and U/s.420 of the I.P.C.
2. Heard Ms. Paavani Chadha, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State/Respondent
No.1 and Mr. Aayush Kedia, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2/CBI.
3. Apart from the Applicant there was one more accused
Mani Bhushan in the trial, but he died during pendency of the trial
and, therefore, the trial proceeded only against the present
applicant.
4. The prosecution case is that the applicant was a retired
public servant and was working with the Punjab National Bank
before his retirement. After his retirement he was working as
recovery agent in that bank. The prosecution case is that the
complainant's property was auctioned. The applicant suggested to
him that he should meet the accused No.1 and if the bribe is paid
to him then auction could be cancelled. The complainant
approached C.B.I. and lodged his complaint. A trap was laid and
3 of 4 19-ia-147-23
the accused No.1 was found having accepted the amount of
Rs.1.80 crores. The applicant was present with the accused No.1.
On this basis the prosecution was launched.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant had not accepted the amount. Though, the demand is
sought to be proved through the recorded conversation, but the
expert who was examined during trial had no qualification to give
opinion about the voice. She further submitted that the charge was
not specifically framed U/s.7 of the P.C. Act. Learned counsel
pointed out that the applicant is 77 years of age. The sentence is
short. The Appeal is not likely to be decided within a short period.
The Applicant was on bail during trial. Even after his conviction he
was granted bail U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c.
6. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed this application
on merits, but he conceded that the sentence is short and the
appeal is not likely to be decided within that period.
7. I have considered these submissions. All the points
raised by learned counsel for the applicant will have to be decided
4 of 4 19-ia-147-23
at the final hearing stage. The sentence is short and the appeal is
not likely to be decided within that period. The applicant was on
bail during trial and even after his conviction he was granted bail
U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c. by the trial Court. The applicant is 77 years
of age. Considering all these aspects, the applicant can be granted
bail pending his Appeal.
8. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.31 of 2023, the Applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in
the sum of Rs.50000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
ii) The Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
