Jharkhand High Court
Jagmohan Lal Kakkar vs Union Of India Through C.B.I. ... on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 578 of 2023
Jagmohan Lal Kakkar ..... 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. 8369 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. 4,00,000/-. 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. 40,000/- 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 in custody in the present case
through custody warrant or production warrant which is more
than the half of the of the maximum sentence awarded to him in
the present case. He submits that the appellant was initially
taken into the custody on 20.05.1998 and then released on bail
22.08.1998 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 30.01.2008 by the
learned court and then released on 13.04.2009 and then
25.01.2018 to 20.07.2018 and 16.02.2022 to 10.05.2022 (two
months 26 days) 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. He submits that
the appellant is aged about 67 years and suffering from various
ailments and to buttress his argument he refers to supplementary
affidavit.
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 84 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. However, he has not disputed the ailment of the
appellant.
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 19 months in custody and a couple of months is left in
completing half of the sentence without considering the production
warrant, further considering the age and ailment of the appellant
and further considering that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has passed identical order even counting the period of 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/-
