Jharkhand High Court
Tabarak Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 19 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 572 of 2022
------
Tabarak Hussain ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
--------
Order No. 08: Dated: 19 January, 2023
th
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
This court has already admitted the appeal which has
preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentenced dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Special Judge,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case
No. 29 of 2012 whereby and where under the appellant has been
convicted for the offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine
for s. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo S.I.
for two months and also convicted u/s 13(2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for four 04 years and to pay a fine for Rs. 30,000/- and in default
of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for another four months,'
however, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
I.A. No. 11668 of 2022
The instant interlocutory application has been filed during the
pending of this appeal with a prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail
during the pending of this appeal. It has been submitted that the
appellant in this case was charged for taking the bribe of Rs. 3000/-
for releasing the payment of the work done related to the
construction of well at village Karandandr is MNREGA Scheme.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
contended that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubts that there was specific demand of Rs. 3000/- as
bribe and further it has also been pointed out that two independent
witnesses have been examined as P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 and they have
not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile.
It has further been pointed out by the learned sr. defence
counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant has remained
in jail for about 10 months including the pre-conviction and post
conviction period and as on date he is in jail since 29.06.2022.
Further, it has been submitted that this appellant is aged about 65
years old senior citizen and he has been suffering from severe
ailments including the paralysis and therefore it is urged on behalf
of the appellant let this appellant be enlarged on bail during the
pending of this appeal and in support of this contentions a number
of medical prescriptions has also been attached along with the I.A.
with a submission that the appeal in hand is not likely to be heard in
near future.
On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State
opposed the contentions raised one behalf of the appellant
submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the demand
and acceptance of Rs. 3000/- as bribe and also despite the
independent witnesses P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 have been declared
hostile but P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 have not denied their signatures on
the seizure list.
Having heard the parties and perused the record of this case.
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid persuasive
submission advanced on behalf of the appellant, let the appellant be
enlarged on bail 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. 29 of 2012
subject to the conditions, inter alia, that he will deposit the fine amount
under both the counts as awarded by the learned court below and the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants is directed to deposit the
money receipt of the fine amount.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 11668 of 2022 gets disposed of.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
