Jharkhand High Court
Satyendra Kumar Mehra vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 597 of 2023
Satyendra Kumar Mehra ..... ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, D.S.G.I.
: Ms Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to D.S.G.I.
------
I.A. No. 8391 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. On 09.10.2023, on the submission of Mr. Prashant Pallav,
learned D.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. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned D.S.G.I. appearing on
behalf of the C.B.I.
3 I.A. No. 8391 of 2023 has been filed for suspension of
sentence of the appellant namely Satyendra Kumar Mehra and release
him on bail, during the pendency of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the appellant has been held guilty under Section 120B read with
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code
and separately held guilty for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced for the offence
under Section 120-B, read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
477-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for four years with fine
of Rs. 15,00,000/-. He submits that a common sentence for the offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471-A of the Indian Penal Code for
four years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed upon the
appellant. 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 has been sentenced in another R.C. Cases relating to
Fodder Scam. He submits that the appellant is innocent and the
materials are not available on record as well as there is no witness, in
spite of that the appellant has been convicted. He further submits that if
the production warrant has been taken into consideration, the appellant
has already undergone two years and four months of the sentence and if
the production warrant is not taken into consideration, the appellant has
undergone twenty one months and twenty days of the sentence. He
further submits that the appellant is also having the ailments.
6. Mr. Pallav, learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI submits
that the case against the appellant has been well proved, which has been
discussed in para-93 of the judgment. He submits that the appellant is
also convicted in another fodder scam cases, as such, the leniency is not
required, however, he does not dispute that the appellant has undergone
twenty one months and twenty days of the sentence, minusing the
production warrant.
7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and considering that the appellant has already undergone twenty
one months and twenty days of sentence in the present case and only
couple of months are there to complete half of the sentence, as he has
been convicted maximum for four years 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, 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.
7. The aforesaid I.A. is allowed in the above terms and
disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
