Jharkhand High Court
Md. Equbal Ansari @ Md. Eqbal Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ...Opposite ... on 3 October, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 703 of 2024
Md. Equbal Ansari @ Md. Eqbal Ansari, son of Md. Shahjad Ansari @
Shahjad Miyan, resident of village: Suntha, PO: Pandeypura, PS: Patan,
District: Palamau (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ...Opposite Party
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Satish Prasad, APP
...
04/ 03.10.2024
IA No. 9976 of 2024
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the State on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner for
suspension of sentence, during the pendency of this criminal revision petition.
The instant interlocutory application has been filed for grant of bail of
the petitioner, during the pendency of the present criminal revision petition
after suspending the sentence imposed against him vide impugned judgment
dated 15.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gumla
in Cr. Appeal No. 60 of 2023.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the criminal law was set into
motion on the application of Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha, Addl. Project Director,
ITDA, Gumla, in which, it was alleged that Rs. 9,05,16,700/- were allegedly
withdrawn from the SBI Gumla Account No. 11400473211 of ITDA, Gumla by
unknown accused in connivance with official and officers of SBI, Gumla and
the above said amount was transferred in the Account No. 918020058032444
of Amit Chandu Lal Patel in account of Axis Bank, Kotpar Branch, Odisa.
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is allowed to correct
the inadvertent mistake made in paragraph no.13 of the present interlocutory
application.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned
lower appellate Court has not at all considered that there is no evidence against
the petitioner to show his involvement in the present case. The learned counsel
has further submitted that the learned lower appellate Court has not considered
that no distinct identification mark has been written on the seized material. The
learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated
and convicted in the present case only on the basis of suspicion that one non-
working condition printer has been recovered along with other articles. The
learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not even named in
the FIR but subsequently his name has transpired but no any specific allegation
of withdrawal of amount or any forgery has been levelled against him.
Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has cloned
the cheque and transferred the said amount to the Kotpad Branch. The learned
counsel has further submitted that there is no evidence of any transfer of any
amount nor any evidence of any withdrawal that has been made by him. The
learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused, namely, Raj Kumar
Tiwari in IA No. 10759 of 2024 in Cr. Rev. No. 797 of 2024, Pankaj Tigga in
IA No. 10477 of 2024 in Cr. Rev. No. 793 of 2024 and Sajan Raj @ Manish
Jain @ Mangal in IA No. 7858 of 2024 in Cr. Rev. No. 802 of 2024 have been
granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.09.2024, 24.09.2024 and
09.09.2024 respectively. The learned counsel has further submitted that during
the course of trial, the petitioner was in judicial custody since 10.08.2020 and
was granted bail after remaining in custody for five months and thirteen days
and now he is in custody since the date of judgment of the trial Court i.e.
23.09.2023. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the
petitioner may be granted privilege of suspension of sentence, during pendency
of this criminal revision petition.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed this interlocutory
application for suspension of sentence, during the pendency of this criminal
revision petition and has submitted that there is ample evidence, based on the
many prosecution witnesses, against this petitioner, therefore, the petitioner
may not be granted privilege of suspension of sentence, during pendency of
this criminal revision petition.
Having gone through the records of the case, considering the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the
petitioner, during pendency of this criminal revision petition, and accordingly,
present petitioner, named above, is ordered to be released on bail, during
pendency of this criminal revision petition, on executing bail bonds of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Gumla PS Case No. 324 of 2019,
corresponding to GR No. 617 of 2020.
Accordingly, IA No. 9976 of 2024 stands disposed of.
Heard.
Admit.
Put up this case along with Cr. Rev. No. 797 of 2024, Cr. Rev. No.
793 of 2024 and Cr. Rev. No. 802 of 2024.
S.B. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
