Jharkhand High Court
Surajmal Dubey vs The Union Of India Through Cbi on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 630 of 2023
Surajmal Dubey ... Appellant
-Versus-
The Union of India through CBI ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
-----
04/09.10.2023 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. 8627 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.30,000/-. 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.10,000/- 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 case of
the appellant has been dealt with as accused no.191 at page no.451 to 453
in para 112 and sentence has been awarded at page no.490 and 491 at sl.
No.28 of the impugned judgment. The appellant has also given his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court and the
appellant has very clearly stated before the learned Court during his
statement that he is neither proprietor nor partner nor Director of any firm
and the appellant did not possess any bank account in which scam amount
has been transferred either by cash or by cheque or by Demand Draft. The
appellant was only salary paid employee in the firm M/s Angel Medichem
India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. He further submits that not a single penny has
been paid to the appellant either by cash or by demand draft from the
AHD. The appellant has been made escape goat of the circumstances and
he has been wrongly convicted in this case. The I.O. of the case P.W. 594
Akhileshwar Prasad has also accepted the version of the appellant in his
cross examination at para 447, but the learned Court did not deal with the
same in the impugned judgment. He also submits that the appellant is
aged about 71 years.
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-43 and 112 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.8627 of 2023 is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
