Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2190 of 2024 Appellant :- Jagdish Narayan Tripathi Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Surat Shukla,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. In Re: Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 01 of 2024 1. Heard Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shyam Surat Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and gone through the impugned judgment. 2. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-Jagdish Narayan Tripathi against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 02, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 27 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2002, under Sections 7, 13(1)D, read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mirzapur, convicting and sentencing the appellant as under:- (a) Three years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, and in default of payment of fine, thirty days' additional imprisonment. (b) Three years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and in default of payment of fine, thirty days' additional imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The appellant has prayed for his release on bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal before this Court. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that sanction order to prosecute the appellant has been proved by the prosecution by secondary evidence without proving the loss or distress of the original sanction order, hence the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also pointed out that date of birth of the appellant is 01.05.1945, hence as on date appellant is aged about 80 years and on account of old age, he is suffering from old aged disease and is not able to perform his daily routine work without support of others. The trial Court in exercise of powers under Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C. has granted interim bail to the appellant vide order dated 03.02.2024, which has been extended from time to time by this Court and the same is still operative. The said interim bail has not been misused by him. Lastly, it is submitted that in case appellant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in early hearing of this appeal. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter, I find that appellant has been convicted for a maximum period of three years and due to heavy docket, this appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. There is no material on record to presume that there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to the appellant. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasons as mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail during pendency of this Criminal Appeal. 8. Since the appellant is already on interim bail as noted above on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned pursuant to orders granting interim bail, therefore, he is not required to surrender and furnish a fresh personal bond and two sureties. The personal bond and two sureties already furnished by the appellant shall be deemed to be sufficient for this purpose. 9. Realization of fine is not stayed. In Re: Criminal Appeal 1. As per office report dated 16.08.2024, trial court record has been received in the office. 2. List this case in due course for hearing. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad