Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Ram @ Mahendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through on 30 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.278 of 2022
Mahendra Ram @ Mahendra Kumar ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through
Anti-Corruption Bureau .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, APP
-----
3/30.11.2022 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P.
for the State.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated
04.03.2022 and order of sentence dated 10.03.2022, passed by Special Judge,
Vigilance (Anti-Corruption Bureau) Hazaribagh in Special Vigilance Case
No.2 of 2016, whereby and where under, the sole appellant was convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five
years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and further he was sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000.- for the
offence punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and
in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. for each such default and it
was further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
It has been pointed out that this appeal has been admitted by this
Court. It is further submitted that one I.A. No. 9568 of 2022 has been filed
with a prayer to release the appellant on bail during the pending of this
present appeal. It has been contended that the appellant was all along on
bail during the course of trial and total custody period including the period
of jail after conviction and during the period of trial, he has remained in jail
for more than one year and two months. Further it has been pointed out
that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is wholly
non-application of judicial mind in view of the fact that complainant
examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW - 5 and seizure list witnesses
PW - 3 and PW -4 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they
have been declared hostile and there is no other legal evidence for the
conviction of the accused appellant to substantiate the charges that the
appellant was caught red handed with a sum of Rs.21,000/- for taking bribe
in order to hand over the legal documents of the vehicle of the complainant
to the DTO and in this view of the matter, the appellant deserves to be
enlarged on bail during the pending of this appeal.
On the other hand learned Special P.P. Mr. P.D. Agarwal appearing
on behalf of the State did not controvert the fact that the complainant PW -
5 and other two witnesses namely PW- 3 and PW - 4 have turned hostile
and they have not supported the prosecution case.
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid pervasive submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellant and under the facts and circumstances
of this case, this appellant Mahendra Ram @ Mahendra Kumar is directed to
be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance (Anti-Corruption Bureau),
Hazaribagh, in connection with Special Vigilance Case No.02 of 2015,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and
subject to the condition that the amount of fine awarded by the learned
court below be deposited and submit the receipt of the same before the
Court.
Accordingly the I.A. No.9568 of 2022 is allowed.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.278 of 2022
Let the Original Lower Court records be called for from the court
below concerned and put up this case after receipt of the same for hearing.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
