( 2025:HHC:35437 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP No.4145 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2025 Reserved on 13.10.2025 Date of Order: 17.10.2025 Kishan Chand …Appellant Versus CBI …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge Cr.MP No.4145 of 2025 1. Applicant-appellant Kishan Chand, has filed the accompanying appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2025 and order of sentence dated 19.08.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in Corruption Trial No. 17-S/7 of 2015, titled as ‘The Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Amar Singh Bodh & Ors.’ 2. By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence as referred to above, the learned trial Court has 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:35437 ) convicted the applicant-appellant along with two others, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act), and he has been sentenced, as under:- Sr. No. Offences/Sections under which punishment is awarded Sentence imposed 1. Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 13 (1) (d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act. 3 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months. 2. Under Section 419 I.P.C. 2 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 3. Under Section 420 I.P.C. 4 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 4 Under Section 467 I.P.C. 5 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 5. Under Section 468 I.P.C. 4 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 6. Under Section 471 I.P.C. 4 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. ( 2025:HHC:35437 ) 3. Feeling dissatisfied from the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 4. Perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that the judgment of conviction has been assailed mainly on the ground that despite the evidence, so led by the prosecution, according to the applicant, the offences, for which, he has been convicted have not been proved, and the learned trial Court has misread and misappreciated the evidence. 5. Apart from this, findings have also been challenged on the ground that the learned trial Court, while convicting him, has also overlooked the fact that in terms of the Rules/Regulations applicable for disbursement of KCC loans, it was the empanelled Advocate, who was required to certify that the borrower had a clear, valid and marketable title and was competent to create mortgage. 6. The appeal, so preferred by the applicant, has been admitted for hearing by this Court and the disposal of the same will take sufficient long time. 7. By way of the present application, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on bail, who is undergoing the sentence, as imposed by the learned trial Court, by suspending the order of sentence, during the pendency of appeal. ( 2025:HHC:35437 ) 8. From the ground of appeal, it can be said, that the applicant is not having any case in his favour. 9. Moreover, If, the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 421 and in ‘Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in ‘2024 SCC OnLine SC 3320’, then, the sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court, which is for fixed term, is liable to be suspended. Relevant paragraph 3 of the judgment in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai’s case (supra) is reproduced, as under:- “3. When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. ( 2025:HHC:35437 ) Of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.” 10. Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment in Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor’s case (supra), is reproduced, as under:- “7. There is a fine distinction between a sentence imposed by the trial court for a fixed term and sentence life imprisonment. If a sentence is for a fixed term, ordinarily, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to suspend the operation of the same liberally unless there are any exceptional circumstances emerging from the record to decline. However, when it is a case of life imprisonment, the only legal test which the Court should apply is to ascertain whether there is anything palpable or apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the court can come to the conclusion that the conviction is not sustainable in law and that the convict has very fair chances of succeeding in his appeal. For applying such test, it is also not permissible for the court to undertake the exercise of re-appreciating the evidence. The emphasis is on the word “palpable” and the expression “apparent on the face of the record”.” 11. Being guided by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the sentence, which falls within the definition of ‘sentence of fixed term’, in this case, is liable to be suspended. Ordered accordingly. 12. Consequently, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the order of sentence dated 19.08.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is ordered to be suspended and applicant is order to be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the following conditions: ( 2025:HHC:35437 ) (i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, along with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence, in case of ultimate dismissal of the present appeal, by this Court; (ii) That the applicant shall deposit the fine amount, if not, already deposited by the applicant; (iii) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 13. Application is, thus, disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge October 17, 2025 (subhash)