Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Dhananjay Kumar vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 698 of 2023
Dr. Dhananjay Kumar ... Appellant
-Versus-
Union of India through CBI ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
-----
02/09.10.2023 Admit.
2. Call for the Lower Court Records.
3. Issue Notice. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI
waives notice on behalf of the CBI.
I.A. No. 8908 of 2023
4. The said I.A. has been filed for confirmation of provisional bail
granted to the appellant vide order dated 28.08.2023 for a period of 60
days during pendency of the present appeal.
5. The appellant has been convicted for charge under Section 120(B)
read with Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal
Code by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-II, (A.H.D.), Ranchi in R.C. Case
No.48(A)/1996 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.08.2023 and he has been sentenced to R.I. for three years and fine of
Rs.10,000/-. Further, he has been convicted under Section 13(1)(c) and
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has been sentenced
R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.20,000/-. Further, a common sentence
for Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. of three
years and fine of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed and all the sentences have
been directed to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, he has
been further directed to undergo S.I. for six months separately for each set
off offences.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant was found guilty by the learned Trial Court only for the issuance
of requisitions (Ext.126 and 126/1) which were never processed or used in
the commission of the offence. He further submits that the learned Court
has held guilty to the appellant only for the issuance of the said
requisitions, but no charge has been framed against him for issuance of
aforesaid requisition. He also submits that the charges has been framed
against the appellant with respect to other allegations for which he has
faced trial about 22 years in this case, but the learned Court did not found
the appellant guilty on the allegation for which the charges has been
framed against the appellant whereas the appellant was found guilty for
the offence for which no charges has been framed against him. He also
submits that no requisitions in plain paper with respect to any articles has
been used by the office of the D.A.H.O, Ranchi for the purpose of passing
of any bills or for withdrawal of any money.
7. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI submits that
the case of the appellant has been discussed in paras-36 to 41 of the
judgment and the allegations have been found to be established. However,
learned counsel for the CBI does not dispute that the appellant has been
imposed maximum sentence of three years and granted provisional bail.
8. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant and CBI and in the facts and circumstances noted above, the
provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 28.08.2023
passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-II, (AHD), Ranchi, in R.C Case
No. 48(A)/1996, is confirmed, subject to deposit of 50% of the fine amount
before the learned Court 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 and the appellant and his bailors shall not change their
addresses or mobile numbers without permission of the learned Trial Court.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No.8908 of 2023 is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
