SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1098

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
Dinesh Kumar Sinha
Versus
State of Jharkhand through CBI
Criminal Appeal No.1076 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) NO. 8761 OF 2008)
Decided on : 15-05-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future, appellant may be granted bail.

Headnote:Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – While refusing bail and prayer for suspension of sentence High Court giving liberty to renew of the period – Appellant already served two years out of four – No likelihood of hearing of appellant’s appeal before the High Court in near future – Deserves bail. (Para 6)

       Facts of the case:

       Appellant was convicted under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/465 and 477A read with Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sntenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years.

       Appeal before High Court for suspension of sentence and bail was rejected by High Court with liberty to renew prayer for bail after serving half of the period.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellant deserves bail.

       Result:

       Appeal disposed of.

Judgment :-

H.L. Dattu, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The appellant is convicted under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/465 and 477A read with Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi and has ordered the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years.

3) Against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed, appellant has filed an appeal before the High Court. The appellant along with the appeal has also made an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The High Court has rejected the prayer. However has observed, that the appellant may renew his prayer for bail after serving half of the sentence.

4) It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone nearly two years of his sentence and also there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court, therefore it is requested that the appellant may be released on bail.

5) The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6) Since the appellant has undergone almost two years of imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court and also taking into account the fact that the appeal may not heard in the near future, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant/appellant should be released on bail. Accordingly, we grant interim bail to the appellant, subject to the appellant furnishing the bail bond as well as surety to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.

7) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top