R.P DHOLARIA, J.

ORDER IN CRIMINAL APPEAL

1. Heard. Admit.

2. Mr. R.C Kodekar, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1-CBI. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2-State.

ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION

3. RULE. Mr. R.C Kodekar, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1-CBI. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2-State.

4. It appears that the applicant was convicted by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in CBI Special Case No. 28 of 2005, for the offence punishable under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Heard Mr. Kinnar Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. R.C Kodekar, learned advocate for respondent No. 1-CBI and Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP on behalf of respondent-State and perused the impugned judgment and other record made available to this Court.

6. Mr. Kinnar Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that during the pendency of trial, the applicant was on bail and even after conviction the applicant has deposited the amount of fine and his sentence has been suspended vide order dated 25.01.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in CBI Special Case No. 28 of 2005 so as to prefer an appeal in this Court. He therefore, seeks bail pending hearing and final disposal of criminal appeal on the ground that the hearing of the criminal appeal would take long time and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind bar.

7. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate for the CBI, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave appearing for the respondent-State have strongly opposed grant of bail. They have further argued that when the applicant is convicted in corruption case and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three years, this Court may not enlarge the applicant on bail.

8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the fact that the appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and also the applicant was on bail pending trial and there is no allegation as to breach of any condition imposed upon him when he was enlarged on bail pending trial, the present application requires consideration and the same is allowed. The sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in CBI Special Case No. 28 of 2005, on 25.01.2017, is hereby suspended. Same bail, fresh bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

9. Present Application is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.