Jharkhand High Court
Sarat Kumar @ Sharad Kumar @ Sharat ... vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 176 of 2022
---
Sarat Kumar @ Sharad Kumar @ Sharat Kumar--- --- Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI. --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
For the Appellant: Mr. Apurv, Advocate
For the Respondent: M/s. Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet
Sahay, Shivani Jaluka.
---
02/08.04.2022 Admit.
2. Call for the lower court records in connection with R.C. Case
No. 47(A)/1996-Pat from the court of learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I
(A.H.D Scam Cases), Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for confirmation of
provisional bail granted to the appellant for 60 days vide order dated
15.02.2022 through I.A. No. 2383/2022.
4. The sole Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C.
Case No. 47(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 15.02.2022
passed by the Learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I (A.H.D Scam Cases),
Ranchi for the offences under sections 120-B read with sections 420,
409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13
(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- and default sentence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and R.I for three years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and default
sentence under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian
Penal Code, vide impugned order of sentence dated 15.02.2022. All the
sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
a supplier. The role of the appellant (A-67) and other accused A-65, A-
66 and A-109 Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, the then District Animal
Husbandry Officer, Ranchi and Chaibasa are discussed in para-236 to
240 of the impugned judgment. The appellant and others were partners
of a firm M/s Birsa Livestock Feeds and Additives. As per the case of
the prosecution, the appellant used to look after the affairs of the firm
and took fraudulent supplies and obtained payment worth
Rs. 7,14,000/-. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court, however,
considering the lesser gravity of the offence has been pleased to award
the maximum sentence of three years only under the relevant penal
provisions and granted provisional bail to the appellant vide order dated
15.02.2022, which may be confirmed.
6. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits
that the case of the prosecution has been successfully established
through oral and documentary evidence against the appellant.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant and C.B.I and the facts and circumstances noted above,
provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 15.02.2022 by
the Court of learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I. (AHD Scam Cases),
Ranchi is confirmed, subject to deposit of 50% of fine amount imposed
by the learned Trial Court and if not wanted in connection with any
other case. The appellant would not leave the country without
permission of the learned Trial Court. He would also submit his
passport, if any, before the learned Trial Court and the appellant and his
bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission
of the learned Trial Court.
8. I.A. No. 2383/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Shamim/
