Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Kumar Harit vs Union Of India Through C.B.I. ... on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 579 of 2023
Rajendra Kumar Harit ..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I. (AHD), Ranchi ...... Respondent
----
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
For the C.B.I :- Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I
Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I
----
I.A. No. 8314 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. Anil Kumar, learned
A.S.G.I appearing for the C.B.I. the said I.A. has been placed
today.
2. Heard Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.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 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. 9,00,000/-. 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 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 prosecution case suffers from glaring lacunae, and there is no
material on record that displays any criminal intent on the part
of the appellant. He further submits that the appellant has
spent more than 25 months 3 days in custody in the present case
which is more than the half of the maximum sentence awarded
to him in the present case. He submits that the appellant was
initially taken into the custody on 22.02.2000 and then released
on bail 24.05.2000 by the learned court as no charge sheet
could be filed within the 90 days. He submits that the appellant
was again taken into the custody in the present case on
11.12.2007 by the learned court and then released on
11.09.2009 which is evident from the order-sheet of learned
court however, granted provisional bail for 2 months during
aforesaid period. The appellant was also in custody during
16.02.2022 to 05.05.2022 and was produced from the jail on the
strength of production warrant. He submits that the appellant
has remained in custody for about 25 months and now from the
date of judgment. He submits that the appellant has served half
of the maximum sentence awarded to him in the present case.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf
of the C.B.I. submits that the case of the appellant has been
discussed in paras 43 and 55 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 14 months in custody and a couple of months is left in
completing half of the sentence without counting the period of
production warrant, further considering that the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has passed identical order counting 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/-
