Jharkhand High Court
Nityanand Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through on 6 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 349 of 2022
With
I.A. (Cr.) No. 9567 of 2022
------
Nityanand Dubey
@ Nityaanand Dubey ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through
Anti-Corruption Bureau (Vigilance) ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
--------
Order No. 06: Dated: 06 December, 2022
th
Learned counsels for both the parties are present.
Heard the parties.
Learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the appeal filed by the
appellant has been admitted under which impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentenced dated 21.04.2022 pronounced by
the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palamau at
Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No. 28 of 2017 has been challenged
whereby and where under the appellant has been held guilty for the
offence punishable u/s 7 & 13 (2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thereby sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-
u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of
payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo S.I.
for three months, for committing the offence punishable u/s 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, further the appellant was
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 13
(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo S.I.
for further three months and all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
I.A. No. 9567 of 2022
An interlocutory application has been filed to enlarge the
appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal by suspending
the execution of the order of sentence.
It has been pointed out that the case of the prosecution is that
the appellant was demanding a sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four
thousand) for measuring and demarcating the land belonging to the
complainant's father and he demanded illegal gratification and he
was caught red handed but the entire charges leveled against the
appellant get falsified by the deposition of the witnesses which has
been examined on behalf of the appellant, but, the learned trial court
did not heed properly with judicious mind to the deposition of D.W.
1 and D.W. 2. It has been pointed out that Md. Shehazad Pravez was
the C.O. and he deposed that one Ameen Kamin Lakra was deputed
for demarcation of land and therefore he pleaded on behalf of the
appellant that he has no role to play in the alleged offence. Further it
has ben also been contended that the said Ameen Kamin Lakra has
also been examined as D.W. 2 on behalf of the appellant and he
stated that he was authorized to demarcate the land of Krishna
Prasad Verma (complainant's father) and he was ordered for
demarcation of land along with Krishna Prasad Verma and
therefore it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the charges
leveled against the appellant is not substantiated, further it has also
been pointed out that the appellant was in jail from 31.08.2017 to
11.10.2017 during the course of the trial and at present he is in jail
after the judgment of conviction and the total period of conviction is
more than eight months. Therefore it is urged on behalf of the
appellant, let the appellant be enlarged on bail as he is ready to pay
the fine amount as awarded by the learned court below in both the
heads.
Learned Spl.P.P. for the State of Jharkhand through A.C.B.
(Vigilance) opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellant.
Having taken into consideration the persuasive submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellant under the facts and
circumstances of this case, it is found fair and just to grant the
privilege of bail to the appellant and accordingly the appellant-
Nityanand Dubey @ Nityaanand Dubey is directed to be enlarged
on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special
Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance
Case No. 28 of 2017 in connection with A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 25 of
2017 subject to the condition that the amount of fine awarded by the
learned court below under both the counts namely section 7 and
sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act, 1988, be deposited and
deposit the receipt before this Court positively.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 9567 of 2022 stands allowed.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 349 of 2022
Office is directed to call for the original lower court record in
this appeal from the concerned court and let this case be listed after
receipt of the same for hearing the case on merit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
