Allowed

Suresh Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2021IA/1335/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

It allowed an interim application by an accused under suspended sentence and on bail pending trial. The court suspended his sentence and enlarged him on bail to await the hearing and disposal of his criminal appeal against conviction.

What did the court decide?

Dated 21st June, 2021, the sentence is suspended and the applicant is enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in like amounts, subject to specific repor

Suresh Kumar Jain Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

IA in APEAL 416-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1335 OF 2021

¶3

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2021

¶5

Suresh Kumar Jain ...Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Ankit Rajput i/b Mr. Rajesh Jain for the Applicant.

¶7

Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for the Respondent No.1/CBI.

¶8

Mr. S.V.Gavand, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2-State.

¶9

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 21st JUNE, 2021 (Through Video Conferencing)

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

By this application, the applicant (Original accused No.9) seeks suspension of his sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his appeal.

¶13

1/4

¶14

Wakodikar

¶15

IA in APEAL 416-2021.doc

¶16

The applicant (Original accused No.9) alongwith other coaccused, vide judgment and order dated 24^th March, 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI, Greater Bombay in CBI Special Case No. 21 of 2002, has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶17

for the offence punishable under Section 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 years for each of the offence and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each i.e. a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months.

¶18

All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶19

4 Learned Counsel for the applicant (Original accused No.9) submits that the applicant was on bail, pending trial and even post his conviction, his sentence has been suspended. He further submits that he has not abused or misused the liberty granted to him whilst on bail.

¶20

The sentence awarded is a short term sentence. The appeal has been admitted by a separate order passed today in the aforesaid appeal. The same is not likely to be heard in the immediate near future. The applicant was on bail pending the trial and even post his conviction, his sentence was suspended by the Trial Court.

¶21

2/4

¶22

Wakodikar

¶23

IA in APEAL 416-2021.doc

¶24

Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the

¶25

applicant’s sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his appeal, on the following terms and conditions :-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶28

ii) The applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in six months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till his appeal is finally disposed of;

¶29

iii) The applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of his current address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶30

iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail.

¶31

3/4

¶32

Wakodikar

¶33

IA in APEAL 416-2021.doc

¶34

At this stage, learned Counsel for the applicant also prays that

¶35

the direction to pay fine be suspended. Since there is no prayer seeking suspension of fine, the said prayer cannot be considered.

¶36

The application is accordingly disposed of.

¶37

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶39

4/4

¶40

Wakodikar

Suresh Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayesh Jayaram Nilvarna Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Rambali Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash Machhindra Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran Narhari Cheulkar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Pranit @ Sonu Satish Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradeep Babulal Sanghavi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.