Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr vs Unknown on 13 July, 2021
13.07.2021
Mithun/
Suman
Ct.No.42.
IA No: CRAN/1/2021
in
CRA/173/2021
(Via Video Conference)
In re: An application under Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail and suspension of
sentence of the appellant/petitioner during the pendency of
CRA 173 of 2021..
In the matter of: Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr.
...Appellants
Mr.Debasish Roy, Adv.;
Mr.Soumik Ganguly, Adv;
Mr.Saryati Datta, Adv.;
Mr.Sayan Roy, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr.Y.J.Dastoor, Ld. A.S.G.;
Mr.Phiroze Edulji, Adv.;
Mr.Samrat Goswami, Adv.
...for the C.B.I.
This is an application filed by the appellants/petitioners
under Sections 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
praying for suspension of sentence and bail during the
pendency of the instant appeal.
By a judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 6th April, 2021 and 7th April, 2021 respectively passed by
the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court at Asansol, the above
named appellants/accused persons were convicted for offence
punishable under Section 420/468/471/120B of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in
default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of
one year each.
The instant appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners
assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
It is submitted by Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Counsel for
the petitioners that prosecution was initiated for criminal mis-
appropriation of Provident Fund Contribution of seven
employees of Khandra Colliery by some departmental staff
allegedly in collusion with the petitioners. The petitioners are
outsiders. They had no access to the office of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The petitioners were all along
on bail during trial of the case and never misused the
conditions. Therefore, they may be released on bail.
Mr. Phiroze Edulji, learned Counsel for the C.B.I. has
raised strong objection against the prayer for bail. It is
submitted by him that the petitioners were part of criminal
conspiracy to cheat the employees of Eastern Coalfields Limited.
In support of his contention he refers to Page 5 of the judgment
passed by the learned Trial Judge where the specific role of
petitioner No.1 in committing the offence is delineated. The
petitioner No.1 illegally and fraudulently received a sum of
Rs.50,000/- by producing forged documents from the postal
account of one Hira Kohar. In view of such strong material in
the judgment of the Trial Court, learned Advocate for the C.B.I.
has prayed for rejection of the instant application. He also
submits that in case of an offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the Court should not normally grant bail unless
there is any exceptional circumstance. In the instant case there
is being no exceptional circumstance pleaded by the petitioners,
the prayer for bail should be rejected.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this
Court finds that the accused persons were sentenced to term
imprisonment. During trial they were all along on bail. They
never misused the conditions for bail.
Considering such circumstances, the execution of
sentence pending disposal of the appeal is suspended and the
accused persons may find bail of Rs.20,000/- each with two
sureties each, one of whom must be a local surety to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court at
Asansole.
The instant application is thus disposed of.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )
