Kunwar Virendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

Heard Mr. T. N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-ACB.

This appeal has been filed for the following reliefs: -

“That the present appeal is being preferred on behalf of the appellant above named against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 20.12.2019 passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, the learned District & Addl. Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, ACB, Dhanbad in

Special (ACB) Case No. 29/2001 arising out of Sadar (Ranchi) Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20/2001, whereby and wehreunder, the appellant

has been convicted for the offence u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and awarded him sentence to

undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand) for committing the offence punishable under Section 7 of

the P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for two months and sentence to undergo R.I. for three

years with fine of Rs. 30,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and in default

of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for three months. However, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.â€​

I.A. No. 56 of 2020

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 56 of 2020 has been filed for confirmation of provisional

bail of the appellant which has been granted by the learned court below vide order dated 20.12.2019 for a period of one month. The learned counsel

submits that the present case against the appellant has been on account of malicious prosecution, in as much as, against the father of the complainant,

the present appellant had filed a criminal case earlier. He further submits that upon appreciation of evidence, it transpired that the basic ingredients for

offence, in a trap case, has not been fully established by the prosecution. The learned counsel submits that the present petition is otherwise defect free

and the case may be admitted and the Lower Court Records may be called for.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no objection to the prayer made for confirmation of provisional bail of the appellant. He submits that

the appellant should be directed to deposit the entire fine amount which has been imposed by the learned court below.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the appellant was granted provisional bail by the learned court below vide order dated

20.12.2019 for a period of one month. Considering the submissions of the parties, I.A. No. 56 of 2020, is hereby disposed of and the provisional bail of

the appellant which has been granted by the learned court below vide order dated 20.12.2019, is hereby confirmed subject to the condition that the

appellant will deposit the entire fine amount which has been imposed by the learned court below by 31.01.2020. In case of non-deposit of the fine

amount, the bail bond furnished by the appellant shall stand cancelled.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 01 of 2020

Admit.

Office is directed to call for the Lower Court Records from the court concerned.

Post this case on 17.03.2020 under appropriate heading.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX’.