Jharkhand High Court
Manish Kumar vs The Union Of India on 13 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 739 of 2023
Manish Kumar ..... ... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India
through S.P., CBI (AHD), Ranchi. ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate.
: Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar,A.S.G.I.
: Mr. N.K. Parthsarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
------
02/ 13.10.2023 Admit.
2. Issue Notice.
3. Call for the Lower Court Records.
4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI
waives notice on behalf of the CBI.
I.A. No. 9356 of 2023.
5. The sole appellant Manish Kumar, by way of the aforesaid
I.A., prays for confirmation of provisional bail granted to him for 60 days
by order dated 28.08.2023, passed in R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996 by the
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI-II
(AHD), Ranchi.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant is convicted along with others in connection with R.C. Case No.
48(A)/1996 for the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409,
420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code with R.I. for three years
and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian
Penal Code a common sentence for all IPC Sections R.I. for three years and
fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further SI for six
months in each Section. All these sentences were directed to run
concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off has been ordered.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
learned court has given no finding in respect of the fact that the bills were
drawn, but however no material was received by the Department on account
of fake supplies being alleged. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner is that
all the bills that were received by him from the Department, was on account
of correct supplies made, and there have been no occasion where bills
were raised and money was withdrawn from the Treasury, on account of
no supplies made. He submits that the entire allegation, that has been found
to be proved by the Learned Court, is on the basis of the fact that the
Petitioner, through his firm has been able to raise bills, though no supplies
were made and the money was raised from the Treasury. There is absolutely
no evidence that has been relied upon by the learned court, in Order to
prove the case against the Petitioner. He further submits that the entire
allegation, which revolves around the fact that the accused person was
involved in receiving fake supply bills, without supplying any supplier
material to the department and on the basis of such supplier bills the money
has been withdrawn from the Treasury. All these allegations are based on
presumption and surmises, without producing any evidence to that effect.
The entire finding of the Learned Court, therefore, is based upon the fact
that the Court had suspicion, though no absolute evidences have been
produced.
8. 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 63
of the judgment. He submits that the learned trial court has passed the said
judgment after looking into the evidence available on record and in such
type of cases, leniency is not required. However, he does not dispute that
the appellant has been imposed the maximum sentence of three years and
has been granted provisional bail.
9. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant, learned counsel for the CBI as well as further considering the
facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the provisional bail granted
to the appellant vide order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-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.
10. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
