Jharkhand High Court
Tripurari Mohan Prasad vs The Union Of India Through Central ... on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 111 of 2022
----
Tripurari Mohan Prasad .............. Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through Central Bureau of
Investigation ............... Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
Through: Video Conferencing
--
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate,
For the Resp.-CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
M/s. Navneet Sahay, Shivani Jhaluka, A.C to A.S.G.I
---
03/08.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the CBI
on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A No. 1803 of 2022.
Sole appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C.- Case No.
47(A)/1996-PAT vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.02.2022 and
order of sentence dated 21.02.2022 passed by learned Special Judge-V, CBI,
(A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi for the offences under Section 120(B) read with
Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section
13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1.00 Crore under Section 120B of I.P.C
and R.I for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1.00 crore under section 420, 409, 467, 468,
471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and default sentences. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant a 60 years' old
person, was the Managing Director of M/s Mastrine Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. and
Partner of M/s. Manas Sales Corporation as also the sole proprietor of M/s. Bihar
Surgico Medico Agency, Managing representative of other Veterinary Firms
which had made supplies to Animal Husbandry Department during the subject
period. The role of the appellant has been discussed at Paras-226 to 232 of the
impugned judgment. It is submitted that learned trial court has recorded an
erroneous finding regarding involvement of this appellant as Managing Director
of the Firm, though the evidence relating to conspiracy could not be established.
The appellant is 60 years' old and has undergone custody of about 40 months as
per the statement made at Para-27 of the instant I.A during the period 1997, 2005,
2008 and 2018 and thereafter since his conviction. Therefore, he may be enlarged
on bail by suspending the sentence.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits on
instruction that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the charges
against the appellant who was the main person managing the affairs of the Firm
of which he was either proprietor or partner in making fraudulent supply and
receiving fraudulent payment of huge amounts. Learned counsel for the CBI
however states on instruction that the appellant has completed about 1218 days of
custody for different periods during trial and since thereafter his conviction till
31st March 2022 i.e. 3 years, 4 months and 3 days which comes to more than half
of the custody.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken into note the materials relied upon from the lower court record and
also the period of custody undergone by the appellant in connection with the
instant R.C Case No. No. 47(A)/1996-PAT. Having regard to the totality of facts
and circumstances and that the appellant has remained in custody for more than
half of the sentence awarded in the instant case, I am inclined to grant the
privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant by enlarging him on bail.
Accordingly, let the above-named appellant be released on bail,
during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to
the satisfaction of learned Special Judge-V, CBI (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in
connection with R.C Case No. 47(A)/1996-PAT, subject to deposit of fine
amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs in the Court below 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.
I.A No. 1803 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Jk/
