Jharkhand High Court
Mohinder Singh Bedi vs The Central Bureau Of ... on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 104 of 2022
----
Mohinder Singh Bedi .............. Appellant
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation AHD Ranchi ............... Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
Through: Video Conferencing
--
For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate,
For the Resp.-CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
M/s. Navneet Sahay, Shivani Jhaluka, A.C to A.S.G.I
---
03/08.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
C.B.I on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A No. 1856 of
2022.
Sole appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C.- Case No.
47(A)/1996-PAT vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.02.2022 and
order of sentence dated 21.02.2022 passed by learned Special Judge-V, CBI,
(A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi for the offences under Section 120(B) read with
Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section
13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced
to undergo R.I for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50 Lakhs and default sentence under
Section 120B IPC and R.I for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50 Lakhs and default
sentence under section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal
Code. No separate sentence has been awarded under the P.C. Act. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant (A-34)
was the proprietor of M/s. Semex Cryogenic against whom CBI alleged receipt of
amount of Rs. 1,74,61,345/-, out of which, an amount of Rs. 1,39,69,076 was
fraudulent payment. It is submitted that role of the appellant has been discussed
by learned trial court at paragraph nos. 186 to 187. Learned trial court has
rendered erroneous finding of guilt against the appellant. It is further submitted
that appellant is 70 years' old person and has completed more than half of the
custody, which is indicated at para 10 of the instant I.A between the periods 26th
July, 1996 to 22nd November, 1996 for 3 months 26 days and from 10th May,
2006 till 26th August, 2008 for 27 months 16 days and since his conviction on
14th February, 2022. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending the
sentence.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits that
prosecution has successfully established the charges on the basis of both oral and
documentary evidence against this appellant, who received fraudulent payment
against fake supply. However, learned counsel for the CBI states on instruction
that the appellant has completed about 975 days of custody during the trial and
from the date of his conviction till 31st March, 2022 totaling 2 years, 8 months
and 5 days.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken into note of the materials relied upon from the lower court record and
also the period of custody undergone by the appellant in connection with the
instant R.C Case No. No. 47(A)/1996-PAT. Having regard to the totality of facts
and circumstances and that the appellant has remained in custody for more than
half of the sentence awarded in the instant case, I am inclined to grant the
privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant by enlarging him on bail.
Accordingly, let the above-named appellant be released on bail,
during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge-V, CBI (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in
connection with R.C Case No. 47(A)/1996-PAT, subject to deposit of fine
amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs in the Court below 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.
I.A No. 1856 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Jk/
