KANAN USHAKANT SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this application, the applicant has prayed to suspend by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Kheda at Nadiad in the proceedings of ACB Case No. 1 of 2014 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 21/2/2022 and further prayed to release the applicant on bail pending hearing of appeal against the order of conviction and sentence dtd. 21/2/2022 passed in ACB Case No. 1 of 2014 by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Kheda at Nadiad.

(2.) Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State.

(3.) It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that prima facie the judgment and order of conviction is bad in law and the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not established in absence of acceptance. In fact, there is no demand by the present applicant. It is further submitted that none of the ingredients of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act are satisfied and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is completely contrary to record and the evidence which has been led at the trial. It is likely that the present applicant would succeed in appeal at the time of final hearing and therefore, if the present applicant is not granted bail at this stage, it would cause immense prejudice and hardship to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the sentence which has been imposed upon the present applicant is of four years - limited duration. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases including the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State reported in 1994 4 SCC 421, the applicant prays that the applicant be granted bail. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the applicant was on bail and looking to the workload and backlog, the appeal of the applicant is not likely to be heard in near future and if she is not bailed out, the purpose of filing her criminal appeal would become infructuous. It is further submitted that liberty granted to the applicant was not misused by the present applicant. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment in the case of K. Shanthamma v. The State of Telangana (supra). Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow this application.