Jharkhand High Court
Shashindra Mahto @ Shashi Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2023
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2022
Shashindra Mahto @ Shashi Kumar ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Naresh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
-----
5/03.02.2023 Heard learned counsel Mr. Ram Naresh Singh appearing on
behalf of the appellant and learned Special P.P. Mrs. Priya Shrestha
appearing on behalf of the State.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that one I.A. No. 11301 of 2022 has been filled with prayer to enlarge
the petitioner on bail during pending of this appeal.
It has been further submitted that this Court has already been
admitted this appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2022, passed by
learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi in Vigilance (Special) Case No.42
of 2014, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.31 of 2014 for the offence
U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for 3 months
as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years
and also pay a fine Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he
shall further undergo R.I. for 3 months by the said learned court and
period undergone by the appellant as under trial shall be set off
towards the period of sentence and the period of sentence awarded in
said both sections will run concurrently.
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2022
It has been pointed out that the charge against the appellant was
that he was caught red handed in a trap case with a sum of Rs.2500/-,
which was being accepted by him doing favour in issuance of record
of rights (khatiyan).
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that none of the seizure list witnesses neither PW-2 nor PW-8 have
supported the case of the prosecution and both have categorically
stated that no such occurrence had taken place before them and he
had put their signatures on plain paper. Further it has been pointed
out that the entire prosecution case is negated in view of the fact that
the appellant was not a government servant nor he was an staff of the
District Record Room, Ranchi, although he has been prosecuted in this
case as a Copying Clerk of the District Record Room, which is evident
from the deposition of the complainant / informant himself, who has
been examined as PW -1, who categorically stated in para-6 of his
deposition that the appellant was not an employee of the State
Government or the Central Government. Further it has also been
pointed out that relevant witness PW-11 examined on behalf of the
prosecution, who is said to be the staff of District Record Room, who
stated in para-5 of cross examination that during the office hour, the
occurrence did not take place and there was no incident of giving or
taking bribe, in which the appellant was involved. It has further been
submitted that another witness PW-12, who is the I.O. of this case
didn't know as to whether the appellant was a government employee
or not and as such it appears that the investigation done by the I.O.-
PW-12 was perfunctory in nature. Further it is submitted that the
appellant has also remained in jail for about 10 months & 13 days as
on date including the pre-conviction period and post-conviction
period and therefore let him be enlarged on bail during pending of
this appeal.
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2022
On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the
state opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and
submitted that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the
evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and this appellant has
been convicted after taking due sanction of the government and
therefore doubt about the appellant being the government employee
or not is meaningless in challenging the impugned order of conviction
and order of sentence. The FSL report has also supported the case of
the prosecution and therefore the appellant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
Having taken into consideration the persuasive submission
advanced on behalf of the appellant under the facts and circumstances
of this case, this appellant Shashindra Mahto @ Shashi 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, ACB,
Ranchi, in Vigilance (Special) Case No.42 of 2014, arising out of
Vigilance P.S. Case No.31 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to the condition that the
entire fine amount as imposed by the learned court below in both the
sections / counts will be deposited by the appellant. The appellant is
directed to submit the money receipt of the deposit of the fine amount
before the court.
Accordingly the I.A. No. 11301 of 2022 gets disposed of.
Let this appeal be listed under the heading for hearing in
seriatim.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
