Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Junul Bhengraj vs Union Of India Through C.B.I. ... on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 581 of 2023
Dr. Junul Bhengraj ..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I. (AHD), Ranchi ...... Respondent
----
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the C.B.I :- Mr. Prashant Pallav, D.S.G.I.
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to D.S.G.I.
----
I.A. No. 9217 of 2023.
04/16.10.2023 This appeal is already admitted on 16.09.2023 and
on 09.10.2023 on the submission of Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned
D.S.G.I appearing for the C.B.I. the said I.A. has been placed
today.
2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned D.S.G.I., appearing for
the C.B.I.
3. This interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant and release him on bail,
during the pendency of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that by judgment dated 28.08.2023 the appellant is convicted
along with others in connection with R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996
for the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, further
convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code and further under sections 13 (2) r/w Sections 13 (1)
(C) and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act and later on 01.09.2023
sentenced the appellant under Section 120-B read with Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code R.I.
for four years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Further under Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code a common
sentence for all IPC Sections R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- and further under sections 13 (2) r/w Sections 13 (1)
(C) and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act R.I. for four years with fine of
Rs. 3,00,000/- and further ordered that 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 for the appellant submits that
the appellant has preferred the present appeal and there is no
likelihood of present appeal being taken up in the near future
which itself would defeat the ends of justice. He further submits
that the conviction of the appellant has been based on a very
slender reasoning and hence the appellant has a fair chance of
getting acquitted in this appeal. He submits that the appellant
has also been sentenced in other AHD cases, whereupon
consequent to the filing of the appeal by this appellant, this Court
after taking into consideration that the appellant has already
served more than half of the sentence imposed upon him, has
been pleased enough to grant bail to the appellant, during the
pendency of the appeal. He submits that the appellant remained
in custody from 21.04.1998 to 23.07.1998 (3 months 2 days) and
further from 25.06.2004 to 14.03.2008 (3 years 8 months 18
days) and further 28.08.2023 to till date i.e.04.10.2023 (01
month seven days) and total detention period is four years 27
days.
6. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned D.S.G.I. appearing on
behalf of the C.B.I. submits that the case of the appellant has
been discussed in paras 232 to 234 of the judgment of the
learned court. He submits that the learned Court on the basis of
materials convicted the appellant. He disputes the period of
custody of the appellant. He submits that leniency is not
required.
7. In view of the above and considering the period of
custody and further considering that even the production warrant
is not taken into consideration the appellant has already
completed half of the sentence in custody further considering the
age and that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed
identical order even taking into account the production warrant in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 737 of 2018 dated 27.07.2018 and
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 130 of 2022 dated 13.05.2022, I am
inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant by enlarging
him on bail. Accordingly, the appellant 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 bailors shall not
change their addresses or mobile numbers without permission of
the learned Trial Court.
8. The aforesaid interlocutory application is disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
Satyarthi/-
