Jharkhand High Court
Dhurv Bhagat vs The Union Of India Through on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 247 of 2022
---
Dhurv Bhagat --- --- --- Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through
Central Bureau of Investigation --- --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
For the Appellant: Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI and
Mr. Navneet Sahay & Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to ASGI
---
02/ 08.04.2022 Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to remove the following
surviving defects by 13.04.2022.
6(b) Provision of law may be verified / corrected.
9(i) Sentence awarded u/s stated in para-1, aggrieved para and payer may be
verified / corrected from the impugned judgment.
9(ii) Execution name of appellant stated at Vak. Differs from impugned
judgment.
Office to place the file for inspection and removal of defects, on
requisition being made, within this time.
2. Admit.
3. Call for the lower court records in connection with R.C. Case No.
47(A)/1996-Pat from the court of learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I (A.H.D Scam
Cases), Ranchi.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for confirmation of
provisional bail granted to the appellant for 60 days vide order dated 15.02.2022
through I.A. No. 2899/2022.
5. The sole Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No.
47(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 15.02.2022 passed by the
Learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I (A.H.D Scam Cases), Ranchi for the offences
under sections 120-B read with sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three
years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and default sentence under section 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code and R.I for three years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and
default sentence under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, vide
impugned order of sentence dated 15.02.2022. All the sentences have been
ordered to run concurrently.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant (A-10) was
the Chairman of Public Accounts Committee after the tenure of Jagdish Sharma
(A-158) in the year 1995-96. Learned Trial Court has discussed the role of the
appellant and rendered its finding at paragraph-104 of the impugned judgment.
There are allegations against the appellant that he tried to scuttle the inquiry by
any other agency and receiving benefits from the suppliers. However, learned
Trial Court upon considering the lesser gravity of the charges has awarded
maximum sentence of three years under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal
Code and P.C. Act and has been pleased to grant provisional bail to the
appellant, which may be confirmed.
7. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
appellant being the Chairman of the P.A.C was instrumental in scuttling any
inquiry by any other investigating agency, though A.H.D Scam had surfaced.
Prosecution has been able to successfully establish the charges against the
appellant and other accused persons on the basis of oral and documentary
evidence.
8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
and C.B.I and the facts and circumstances noted above, provisional bail granted
to the appellant vide order dated 15.02.2022 by the Court of learned Special
Judge-V, C.B.I. (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.
47(A)/1996-Pat is confirmed, subject to deposit of 50% of fine amount imposed
by the learned Trial Court and if not wanted in connection with any other case.
The appellant would not leave the country without permission of the learned
Trial Court. He would also submit his passport, if any, before the learned Trial
Court and the appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile
nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court.
9. I.A. No.2899 /2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
