Full Text
Translation output
Crl.A. 800/2019 Crl.A. 849/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: August 19, 2019
Date of Order: August 19, 2019
CRL.A. 800/2019
ANSHUL YADAV ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurang Gupta
& Mr. Tez Yadav, Advocates
ANSHUL YADAV ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurang Gupta
& Mr. Tez Yadav, Advocates
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Indronil Mohan, Advocate & with Mr. Raj Saurabh, Inspector
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Indronil Mohan, Advocate & with Mr. Raj Saurabh, Inspector
CRL.A. 849/2019
RAKESH KUMAR @ RAKESH GOSWAMI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. G. Sivabalamurgan, Mr. Deepak Sharma& Mr. Anis Mohd., Advocates
RAKESH KUMAR @ RAKESH GOSWAMI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. G. Sivabalamurgan, Mr. Deepak Sharma& Mr. Anis Mohd., Advocates
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Indronil Mohan & Ms. Santwana, Advocates
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Indronil Mohan & Ms. Santwana, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 2019:DHC:4025
Crl.M.(B) 1304/2019 in CRL.A. 800/2019 Crl.M.(B) 1285/2019 in CRL.A. 849/2019
Vide impugned
Crl.M.(B) 1304/2019 in CRL.A. 800/2019 Crl.M.(B) 1285/2019 in CRL.A. 849/2019
Vide impugned
JUDGMENT
, applicants/appellants - Anshul Yadav and Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Goswami have been convicted for the offence under Section 120 B of IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of
Prevention of Corrupt Act, 1988 and they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine with default clause.
Appellant/applicant-Rakesh Kumar has been also awarded lesser terms for allied offences. Suspension of substantive sentence awarded to applicants/appellants is sought on the ground that their conviction is unjustified and they have a good case on merits.
Since both the appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment, therefore, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel appearing for applicants/appellants submitted that appellants had remained on bail during trial and as per nominal roll, their antecedents are clean. Learned counsel for applicants/appellants further submitted that appellant-Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Goswami has family responsibilities to shoulder, as his family members are totally dependent upon him. On behalf of appellant-Anshul Yadav, it was submitted that he is a Law student who has to prepare for his semester examination for
LLB degree. It was also submitted that hearing of the appeals is likely to take time and so, substantive sentence awarded to applicants/appellants be suspended.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, order on sentence and nominal roll of applicants/appellants, I find that applicants/appellants had been on bail during trial and they have not misused it. The hearing of these appeals is likely to take time and appellants have an arguable case. In the facts and circumstances of this case, substantive sentence awarded to appellants is suspended during pendency of these appeals subject to deposit of fine, if not already deposited, and upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹20,000/- with one local surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
Both the applications are accordingly disposed of while not commenting upon the merits of the case.
Dasti.
Prevention of Corrupt Act, 1988 and they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine with default clause.
Appellant/applicant-Rakesh Kumar has been also awarded lesser terms for allied offences. Suspension of substantive sentence awarded to applicants/appellants is sought on the ground that their conviction is unjustified and they have a good case on merits.
Since both the appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment, therefore, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel appearing for applicants/appellants submitted that appellants had remained on bail during trial and as per nominal roll, their antecedents are clean. Learned counsel for applicants/appellants further submitted that appellant-Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Goswami has family responsibilities to shoulder, as his family members are totally dependent upon him. On behalf of appellant-Anshul Yadav, it was submitted that he is a Law student who has to prepare for his semester examination for
LLB degree. It was also submitted that hearing of the appeals is likely to take time and so, substantive sentence awarded to applicants/appellants be suspended.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, order on sentence and nominal roll of applicants/appellants, I find that applicants/appellants had been on bail during trial and they have not misused it. The hearing of these appeals is likely to take time and appellants have an arguable case. In the facts and circumstances of this case, substantive sentence awarded to appellants is suspended during pendency of these appeals subject to deposit of fine, if not already deposited, and upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹20,000/- with one local surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
Both the applications are accordingly disposed of while not commenting upon the merits of the case.
Dasti.
CRL.A. 800/2019
The appeal stands already admitted on 12th July, 2019.
List in due course in the category of regulars.
The appeal stands already admitted on 12th July, 2019.
List in due course in the category of regulars.
CRL.A. 849/2019
Admit.
List alongwith Crl.A. 800/2019 in due course in the category of regulars.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 19, 2019 r
Admit.
List alongwith Crl.A. 800/2019 in due course in the category of regulars.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 19, 2019 r