Md. Tauhid @ Tauhid vs Union Of India Through Cbi
2023 Latest Caselaw 4050 Jhar

                                                   1               Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 637 of 2023


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 637 of 2023
            Md. Tauhid @ Tauhid                              ... Appellant
                                       -Versus-
            Union of India through CBI                      ... Respondent
                                           -----

            CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                           -----
            For the Appellant        : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
            For the CBI              : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
                                       Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
                                           -----
05/18.10.2023     The appeal was admitted on 13.10.2023 and it was observed that the

I.A. No. 8543 of 2023, which has been filed for suspension of sentence, will

be considered on the next date and that is why, the said I.A. has been

placed today.

2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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. 8543 of 2023 has been filed for suspension of sentence of

the appellant and to release him on bail, during the pendency of this

appeal.

4. 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 in R.C. Case No.48(A)/1996 and he has been

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. 4,00,000/-. A common sentence for the offence

under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for four

years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- has also been imposed upon the appellant

and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six months in each section 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 637 of 2023

was also be imposed and all the sentences have been directed to run

concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is

contradiction in the statement of the witnesses therefore it goes in favour

of the appellant, but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the

material facts and it is liable to be set aside by this Court. He further

submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that there is major

lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer during investigation. He also

submits that the appellant was in judicial custody since 18.11.1996 to

28.02.1997 i.e. for 3 months and 10 days, from 01.05.2006 to 30.08.2008

i.e. for 27 months 29 days and from 01.09.2023 to till date. He submits

that total custody period is 31 months 14 days as on the date of filing this

appeal. He further submits that the sentence is four years and the

appellant is in custody for more than half of the sentence. To buttress this

argument, he refers supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant annexing

the report of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Beur, Patna and Birsa

Mundal Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the

CBI submits that the case against the appellant has been well proved,

which has been discussed in paras-43 and 66 of the judgment. He further

submits that the learned Court has rightly held the appellant guilty and, as

such, leniency is not required. He disputes half of the sentence undergone

by the appellant.

7. In view of the above facts, it appears that the appellant has been

convicted for four years and further period disclosed in the supplementary

affidavit which is the report of the Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Beur, 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 637 of 2023

Patna and Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi and the period noted

hereinabove suggest that the appellant has served half of the sentence.

Considering that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken into

consideration the production warrant for suspension of sentence in Cr.

Appeal (S.J.) No. 737 of 2018 vide order dated 27.07.2018 and also in Cr.

Appeal (SJ) No. 130 of 2022 vide 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.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.8543 of 2023 is disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/