Trilochan Kapoor Sharma vs State Of Sikkim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I.A. No. 01 of 2018 in Crl.A. No. 40 of 2018

Applicant/Convict/Appellant : Trilochan Kapoor Sharma, S/o Late Hari Singh Sharma, R/o Rhenock Bazaar, East Sikkim.

versus

Respondent : State of Sikkim.

Application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ------------------------------------------------------------ Appearance: Mr. B. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Upreti and Mr. Safal Sharma, Advocates.

Mr. Karma Thinlay and Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Additional Public Prosecutors with Mr. S.K. Chettri and Ms. Pollin Rai, Assistant Public Prosecutors. ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Applicant is before this Court seeking suspension of

judgment of conviction and sentence of imprisonment and

enlargement on bail on any stringent conditions.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. B. Sharma submitted that

the Applicant was convicted in S.T. (Vigilance) Case No. 01 of I.A. No. 01 of 2018 in Crl.A. No. 40 of 2018 2

Trilochan Kapoor Sharma Vs. State of Sikkim

2017 (State of Sikkim v. Trilochan Kapoor Sharma) on

29.09.2018 under Sections 468, 420, 471, 419 and 201 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988. The maximum penalty awarded to

the Applicant was imprisonment for a period of one year and

fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, under Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That since his

first appearance before the learned Trial Court on 23.09.2014,

the Applicant has been on bail and has not misused the

liberty. On this count reliance was placed on Sunil Kumar v.

Vipin Kumar and others.1 That apart, the Applicant is a

permanent resident of Rhenock, East Sikkim, holds a

prestigious post in the State Government and therefore he will

not abscond. Besides, he is also a patient of mental illness and

is under treatment towards which Medical Certificate dated

13.01.2018 has been relied on which indicates that he is on

life-long medication for mental illness. He is also a diabetic

patient on insulin and should he be incarcerated, he will suffer

mental and physical consequences and hence the prayer for

enlargement on bail. To further buttress his submissions,

learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Satyendra Kumar

Mehra @ Satendera Kumar Mehra v. The State of Jharkhand2

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court would hold that there are

no fetters on the power of the Appellate Court while exercising

1 (2014) 8 SCC 868 2 Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2018 I.A. No. 01 of 2018 in Crl.A. No. 40 of 2018 3

Trilochan Kapoor Sharma Vs. State of Sikkim

jurisdiction under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Karma Thinlay

while objecting to the prayer for bail contended that the

Medical Report relied upon by the Applicant pertains to the

year 2008 till 2012 and the Applicant has not indicated any

exceptional circumstance for granting bail to him. That it is

now a settled principle of law that merely because the liberty

granted to the Applicant by way of bail in the learned Trial

Court was not misused by him is of no significance since he

has been convicted on completion of trial. That the benefit of

suspension of sentence can be granted only in exceptional

circumstances, which however, have not been made out in the

instant petition and since the conviction is also under Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petition

deserves to be dismissed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor

placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishna Dattatrya

Kumbhar3 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

while exercising powers under Section 389 Cr.P.C. not only

must there be circumspection and caution but the Applicant

must satisfy the Court as to the consequence that is likely to

befall him if the condition is not suspended. 3 (2012) 12 SCC 384 I.A. No. 01 of 2018 in Crl.A. No. 40 of 2018 4

Trilochan Kapoor Sharma Vs. State of Sikkim

4. Heard learned Counsel at length. I have also perused

the documents relied on by the Applicant.

5. In the instant case, it is evident that the Applicant is a

patient of Schizo Affective Disorder. It is also seen that the

condition could fluctuate between nearly normal to full blown

psychosis in a short course of time. Evidently, the Applicant is

being treated as an out-patient in both STNM Hospital,

Gangtok and NIMHANS, Bangalore and is on life long

medication. Besides, it is also submitted that he is a diabetic

patient. In the said facts and circumstances, the grounds

made out are sufficient to suspend the sentence and enlarge

the Applicant on bail.

6. In the result, the Applicant be enlarged on bail on

furnishing PB&SB of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand)

only, each, with one solvent surety, to the satisfaction of the

learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

South Sikkim at Namchi. He shall, however, not leave Sikkim

without the prior permission of the learned Special Judge,

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, South Sikkim at Namchi.

7. Sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court against the

Applicant stands suspended till further orders.

8. The I.A. is allowed and disposed of accordingly. I.A. No. 01 of 2018 in Crl.A. No. 40 of 2018 5

Trilochan Kapoor Sharma Vs. State of Sikkim

9. A copy of this Order be sent to the learned Special

Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, South Sikkim at

Namchi.

10. Certified copies be made available to the parties, as per

Rules.

(Meenakshi Madan Rai) Judge 26.12.2018

Approved for reporting: Yes Internet: Yes

ml