Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India Through on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 612 of 2023
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Singh
@ Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh ..... ... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through
Central Bureau of Investigation ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
: Mr. Debarshi Mondal, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
: Mr. N.K. Parthsarthi, A.C. A.S.G.I.
------
I.A. No. 8380 of 2023.
04/ 16.10.2023 The appeal was admitted on 16.09.2023 and on 09.10.2023,
on the submission of Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the
CBI the matter was adjourned for today, that's how the aforesaid I.A. has
been placed today.
2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, 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. 8380 of 2023 has been filed for suspension of
sentence of the appellant namely Dr. Ravindra Kumar Singh @ Dr.
Rabindra Kumar Singh Singh and release him on bail, during the
pendency of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the appellant has been convicted under Section 120B read with Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and
further convicted for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo a common sentence
for all IPC Sections R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and
further convicted under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to R.I. for
four years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-. He further submits that in default
of payment, further S.I. for six months in each section shall be imposed.
He further submits that all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the appellant is aged about 74 years and suffering from various ailments.
He submits that the appellant is suffering from Psychiatry released
disease, ENT problem, eye problem, skin related problem etc. and in
support thereof, he refers to para-3 of the supplement affidavit, filed on
behalf of the appellant and the prescriptions, which have been brought
on record by way of Annexure-S/A-1 series of the said affidavit. He
further submits that the appellant has already undergone twenty eight
months of the sentence, if the production warrant is taken into
consideration and he has undergone six months of the sentence in the
present case if the production warrant is not taken into consideration. On
these grounds, he submits that the sentence against the appellant may
kindly be suspended.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI
submits that the case against the appellant has been well discussed in
paras-36 to 41 of the judgment. He submits that leniency is not required.
He has raised dispute about custody with regard to half of the sentence
undergone by the appellant, on the ground that the production warrant is
not required to be considered for counting half of the custody. However,
he does not dispute the ailment of the appellant.
7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and considering that the appellant has already undergone twenty
eight months of the sentence, if the production warrant is taken into
consideration and he has undergone six months of the sentence in the
present case, if the production warrant is not taken into consideration,
and 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 considering the
ailments of the appellant and in support thereof the documents have
been brought on record, which suggests that the said prescriptions are of
the reputed hospital of the Ranchi City as well from the CMC, Vellore,
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 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/-
