Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shailendra Bhandari vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2430/2025
Shailendra Bhandari S/o Late Shri Narpat Chand, Aged About 68
Years, R/o House No 395-A II C- Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
(Presently Lodged In Centrail Jail Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through C.B.I.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. Assisted by
Mr. Pravin Vyas and Mr. Harshvardhan
Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Solanki, Special PP (for
C.B.I.)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
16/10/2025
IN S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2430/2025:-
1. Admit.
2. Call for the record.
3. Issue notice to the sole respondent.
4. Mr. P.C. Solanki, learned counsel puts in appearance on
behalf of the sole respondent; hence service of notice upon the
sole respondent stands completed.
IN S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
No.1953/2025:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as
learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation
and perused the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 06:20:27 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLAS-2430/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the
alleged amount of Rs.26,60,927/- has been shown as assets
purportedly possessed by the appellant-applicant beyond his
known sources of income. He refers to paragraph no.76 of
the impugned order, wherein the details pertaining to an amount
of Rs.25,00,000/- have been specified, and also refers to the
explanation (Exh. P-29) furnished before the Investigating Officer,
wherein it has been clarified that the said amount represented a
loan taken by the appellant-applicant's son, Akhil Bhandari, from
one jeweller, Rameshwar Katta, for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. He
submits that if the said amount of Rs.25,00,000/- is duly
accounted, then hardly any amount remains unexplained for which
the allegation under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, has been levelled against the appellant-
applicant. He further submits that the punishment imposed upon
the appellant-applicant is of four years' simple imprisonment, and
there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future. He,
therefore, implores this Court to allow the application for
suspension of sentence.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of
Investigation opposes the application and submits that the learned
Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant-applicant after
considering the entire evidence threadbare. He submits that
the explanation furnished by the appellant-applicant, marked as
Exh. P-29, was duly considered by the learned Trial Court.
However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that no
proceedings were initiated against Akhil Bhandari and
Chandraprakash Katta, pertaining to the case in hand.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 06:20:27 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLAS-2430/2025]
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the facts that arguable points have been raised
by the appellant-applicant with reference to the explanation
marked as Exh. P-29, wherein it has been stated that a sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- was taken as a loan by the appellant-applicant's
son, Akhil Bhandari, from one Anantaram Katta, as also
considering the contention that the alleged amount has been
shown as assets beyond the known sources of income despite the
said explanation, coupled with the fact that the appellant-applicant
has been sentenced to four years' simple imprisonment, and the
chances of hearing of appeal in near future being bleak, this Court
is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences
awarded to the accused appellant-applicant.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Jodhpur
Metro, Jodhpur, vide judgment dated 09.10.2025 in Session Case
No.07/2017 (CIS No.07/2017), against the appellant-applicant,
Shailendra Bhandari S/o Late Shri Narpat Chand, shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he
shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to
the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
court on 18.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 06:20:27 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLAS-2430/2025]
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as
well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.
6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the appellant-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
appellant-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order
shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc.
file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating
to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the
said appellant-applicant does not appear before the trial Court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
10-devrajP/-
(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 06:20:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
