[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Firoze Akhtar @ Firoz Akhtar vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 836 of 2025
------
Firoze Akhtar @ Firoz Akhtar, aged about 62 years, son of
late S.N. Hoda, resident of Village-Dhanchuhi, P.O. & P.S.-
Rajgir, Dist.-Nalanda, State-Bihar
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation
.... .... .... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 837 of 2025
------
Brajesh Mishra, aged about 70 years, son of late Rama
Shankar Mishra, resident of Karamtoli, Ranchi, P.O. &
P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation
.... .... .... Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharti, Advocate
------
Order No.07 Dated- 18.03.2026
I.A. No.17230 of 2025 (in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 836 of 2025)
With
I.A. No.17228 of 2025 (in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 837 of 2025)
Heard the parties.
Since both these appeals and both these interlocutory
applications are in respect of the same impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence hence, these interlocutory
applications are disposed of by this common order.
Interlocutory Application No. 17228 of 2025 has been filed by
the appellant- Brajesh Mishra and Interlocutory Application No.
17230 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant - Firoze Akhtar @ Firoz
Akhtar both with the prayer to release them on bail during the
pendency of their respective appeals filed against the judgement of
conviction and order of sentence passed in R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R (C) by the learned Special Judge C.B.I., Ranchi
whereby and where under, the learned Special Judge C.B.I., Ranchi
has held both the appellants guilty for the offences and sentenced
them as under:-
Offence u/s Sentence Fine Default
120B of I.P.C. r/w 13 R.I. for four Rs.1,00,000/- S.I. for
(1) (d) of P.C. Act years six
months
13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of R.I. for four Rs.1,00,000/- S.I. for
P.C. Act years six
months
120B r/w 193 of R.I. for two Rs.10,000/- S.I. for
I.P.C. years two
months
and it was also ordered that the sentences of imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the appellants that the allegations against the appellants are that
they were circle inspectors at the relevant point of time and they
endorsed the report submitted by the co-accused-Manilal Mahto
who was a halka karamchari which was then placed before co-accused
- Ram Kumar Mandal-who was the Circle Officer at the relevant
point of time but the order taking cognizance against whom was
quashed vide order dated 05.12.2014 in Cr.M.P. No. 2773 of 2012 by
is a coordinate bench of this court and though the same was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (Crl.)
No. 9452 of 2016 along with S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9407 of 2016 but both
the special leave petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India vide order dated 01.09.2017. It is next submitted that
the appellants were granted anticipatory bail in connection with the
said case and they appeared before the learned trial court and they
were all along on bail during the trial of the case and also on the date
of judgment and they all along cooperated with the trial and there is
no likelihood of the hearing of this appeal in near future. It is further
submitted that there is no allegation against the appellants of
misappropriating or otherwise converting for their use any property
entrusted to them nor there is any allegation against them of
intentionally enriching themselves illicitly during the period of their
office. It is also submitted that the maximum sentence upon the
appellants is four years each for the offence punishable under the
penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a separate
sentence of two years has been imposed in respect of the offence
punishable under Section 120B read with 193 of the Indian Penal
Code. It is next submitted that the co-convicts namely Manilal Mahto
and Kartik Kumar Prabhat have already been granted bail during
the pendency of their respective appeals. It is also submitted that the
appellants undertake to cooperate with the hearing of this appeal.
Hence, it is submitted that the appellants be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand vehemently
oppose the prayer and submits that the suspension of sentence of the
co-convict-Enos Ekka has been rejected and there is specific
allegation against the appellants of fabricating false evidence for the
purpose of being used in a judicial proceeding. Hence, it is
submitted that the appellants ought not to be admitted to bail.
Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the evidence in the record, this Court finds that the
allegation against the appellants stand on a different footing then
that of the co-convict- Enos Ekka. Undisputedly at the relevant point
of time, the appellants were public servants and posted as circle
inspectors. They have endorsed the reports submitted by the co-
convict- Manilal Mahto. The sentence imposed upon co-convict
Manilal Mahto and Kartik Kumar Prabhat have been suspended.
The appellants have been in custody for over six months. There is no
chance of this appeal being heard in near future.
Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, the appellants,
named above, are directed to be released on bail till disposal of this
appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi , in connection
with R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R (C) with the condition that
the appellants will cooperate with the hearing of this appeal.
Both these interlocutory applications are disposed of
accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 836 of 2025 and 837 of 2025
List these appeals under the heading 'Hearing' before the
appropriate Bench.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
18.03.2026
Gunjan-
