Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 285 (GUJ)

Bhavanibhai Chetanlal Chauhan v. State of Gujarat

2017-02-03

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2017
ORDER : R.P DHOLARIA, J. ORDER IN CRIMINAL APPEAL 1. Heard. Admit. 2. Mr. K.P Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State. ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION 3. RULE. Mr. K.P Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State of Gujarat. 4. It appears that the applicant was convicted by the Special Judge (ACB), Palanpur, in Special ACB Case No. 26 of 2013, on 21.01.2017, whereby the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the applicant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. All the sentences to run concurrently. 5. Heard Mr. P.M Lakhani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. K.P Raval, learned APP on behalf of respondent-State and perused the impugned judgment and other record made available to this Court. 6. Mr. P.M Lakhani, 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 21.1.2017, by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Ahmedabad so as to prefer 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. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.P Raval appearing for the respondent-State has strongly opposed grant of bail. He has further argued that when the applicant is convicted in corruption case and sentenced him for about three years, this Court may not enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.P Raval appearing for the respondent-State has strongly opposed grant of bail. He has further argued that when the applicant is convicted in corruption case and sentenced him for about 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 filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence 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. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the present application requires consideration and the same is allowed. The sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Palanpur, in Special ACB Case No. 26 of 2013, on 21.01.2017, 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. 10. Present Application is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.