[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar vs Union Of India Represented By Cbi on 20 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 919 of 2025
------
Anil Kumar, aged about 63 years, son of late Sesh Nath,
resident of Village-Chandil, P.O. & P.S.-Chandil, Dist.-
Bhojpur, Bihar. At present resident of Harihar Singh Road,
Tetar Toli, P.O. & P.S.-Bariyatu, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
Union of India represented by CBI
.... .... .... Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
: Ms. Shreya Shukla, AC to ASGI
------
Order No.07 Dated- 20.03.2026
IA. No.17249 of 2025
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with the prayer to release the appellant on
bail during the pendency of the appeal 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 of 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 counsel for the appellant that
the allegations against the appellant is that he was circle inspector at
the relevant point of time and he 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 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 appellant was granted anticipatory bail in
connection with the said case and he appeared before the learned
trial court and he was all along on bail during the trial of the case
and also on the date of judgment and he all along cooperated with
the trial and there is no likelihood of the disposal of this appeal in
near future. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against
the appellant of misappropriating or otherwise converting for his
own use any property entrusted to him nor there is any allegation
against him of intentionally enriching himself illicitly during the
period of his office. It is also submitted that the maximum sentence
upon the appellant is four years 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
appellant undertakes to cooperate with the hearing of this appeal.
Hence, it is submitted that the appellant be enlarged on bail.
The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the
prayer for the suspension of sentence of one of the co-convict has
been rejected by a coordinate bench of this court.
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 appellant stand on a different footing then that
of the co-convict- Enos Ekka; whose prayer for the suspension of
sentence has been rejected by a coordinate bench of this court.
Undisputedly at the relevant point of time, the appellant was public
servant and posted as circle inspector. He has 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 in the respective appeals filed by them, against the
same common judgement of conviction and order of sentence. The
appellant has been in custody for over six months. There is no
chance of this appeal being disposed of in near future.
Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, the appellant,
named above, is directed to be released on bail till disposal of this
appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand), 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 appellant will cooperate with the hearing of this appeal.
This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
List this appeal under the heading 'Hearing' before the
appropriate Bench.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
20.03.2026
Gunjan-
