Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma vs The Union Of India Through Cbi ... on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 626 of 2023
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma ..... ... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through CBI (AHD) ..... ... 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.
: Mr. N.K. Parthsarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
------
I.A. No. 8629 of 2023.
04/ 16.10.2023 The appeal was admitted on 16.09.2023 and it was observed
that the I.A. for suspension of sentence will be considered after receipt of
the LCR and that's how the aforesaid I.A. has been placed today.
2. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I.
appearing on behalf of the C.B.I.
3 I.A. No. 8629 of 2023 has been filed for suspension of
sentence of the appellant namely Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma and release him
on bail, during the pendency of this appeal.
4. 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
four years and fine of Rs. 24,00,000/- and under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 of the Indian Penal Code a common sentence for all IPC Sections
R.I. for four years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- 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.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in
absence of any cogent materials against the appellant, the appellant has
been convicted by the learned court. He submits that the appellant has
already undergone thirty months and three days of the sentence if the
production warrant is taken into consideration, and if the production
warrant is not taken into consideration, the appellant has already
undergone nine months of the sentence in the present case. He further
submits that the appellant is aged about 80 years and suffering from heart
ailment and he has undergone open heart surgery and he refers to para-8
of the I.A., wherein disclosure to that effect has been made, however, no
documents have been brought on record in support thereof.
6. 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
77 of the judgment. He submits that the leniency is not required in the
matter, as there are cogent materials against the appellant. He further
submits that in support of the ailment of the appellant, no document has
been brought on record to suggest that the appellant has undergone the
open heart surgery.
7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and considering that the appellant has already undergone thirty
months and three days of the sentence if the production warrant is taken
into consideration, and if the production warrant is not taken into
consideration, the appellant has undergone nine months of the sentence
in the present case and also in view of the fact that the co-ordinate
Bench of this court has taken into consideration the production warrant
for suspension of the sentence in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 737 of 2018 by
order dated 27.07.2018 and also in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 130 of 2022 by
order dated 13.05.2022 and further the appellant is aged about 80 years
and the appellant has undergone the open heart surgery, I am inclined to
suspend the sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail.
Accordingly, the appellant, named above, be released on bail, during the
pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-
VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI-II (AHD), Ranchi, in connection with
R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996, subject to deposit of 20% 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
bailers shall not change their address or mobile numbers without
permission of the learned Trial Court.
8. The aforesaid I.A. is allowed in the above terms and
disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
