Bombay High Court
Ashok Solanki vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 10 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 08-IA-360-23-IN-APEAL-75-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.360 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.75 OF 2023
Ashok Solanki .... Applicant
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Vinay J. Bhanushali, Advocate for Applicant.
• Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for CBI/Respondent No.1.
• Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 10th FEBRUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
the Appeal preferred by the Applicant. The Applicant was
convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge (CBI), Greater
Mumbai, vide his Judgment and Order dated 20/12/2022
passed in CBI Special Case No.9/2001.
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
V NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2023.02.14
11:55:28
+0530
Nesarikar
2/4 08-IA-360-23-IN-APEAL-75-23.odt
2. The Applicant was the original accused No.2. He was
convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w
420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
3. Heard Mr.Vinay J. Bhanushali, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, learned counsel for the
CBI/Respondent No.1 and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the
State.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the
same. Even after his conviction he was granted bail u/s 389 of
Cr.P.C.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the original accused
No.1 was the Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Dahisar (E). He
3/4 08-IA-360-23-IN-APEAL-75-23.odt
helped the Appellant and others in opening different accounts
and extended credit facilities beyond the sanctioned limit. There
are allegations that the facilities were availed by the Appellant
and others and based on that money, some further transactions
were carried out in different accounts.
6. Learned counsel for Appellant submitted that the bank
had not suffered any loss and there is no proof that any amount
was misappropriated.
7. Learned counsel for CBI opposed these arguments. But
he conceded that the sentence imposed is short. He submitted
that the Appellant had entered into one time settlement and
therefore leniency was already shown to him by the Trial Court
in imposing a lesser sentence.
8. I have considered these submissions. The points on
merit will have to be considered at the final hearing stage. The
sentence imposed is short. The Appeal is not likely to be decided
4/4 08-IA-360-23-IN-APEAL-75-23.odt
within that short period. The Applicant was on bail during trial.
Even after his conviction he was granted bail for a limited
period.
9. Considering this background, the Applicant can be
granted bail during pendency of his Appeal.
10. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.75 of 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 stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
