Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Bijayeshwari Prasad Sinha @ ... vs Vrs on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 100 of 2022
Dr. Bijayeshwari Prasad Sinha @ Dr. Bijayeshwari Pd. Sinha
@ Bijayeshwari Prasad Sinha ............Appellant
Vrs.
Union of India through Superintendent of Police, C.B.I
(AHD Scam) Ranchi .......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Appellant : Mr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate
For the CBI : M/s Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet Sahay,
and Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to ASGI
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.
1836 of 2022.
2. 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 the
Learned Special Judge-V, CBI (AHD 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) r/w Section
13(1)(c)&(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 Lakh U/s 120B I.P.C
and R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50.00 Lakh under all the other
sections of IPC and default sentence. All the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant (A-56)
was the proprietor of the firm M/s Ekta Veterinary Works, Ranchi
against whom it is alleged that during the financial year 1991, 1991-92
and 1993-94 the firm supplied material worth Rs.1,53,39,231/-and
received the amount out of which Rs. 17,99,175/- was established as
fraudulent since transportation of materials was shown to have been
done through non-commercial vehicles. It is submitted that the learned
Trial Court has rendered its finding in respect of appellant in para 221 to
225 of the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that merely on
circumstantial evidence charges against the appellant could not be
established. He had received payment only after supply of the materials
and medicines. However, learned Trial Court relying upon the
prosecution evidence, oral and documentary, has held that he was in
connivance with the AHD officials and beneficiary of the illegal
withdrawal by rising false bills without effective supply. It is submitted
that appellant is 74 years old person and has completed more than 2
years 4 months of custody against the maximum sentence of 4 years as
per chart furnished under para 4 of the I.A. The photo copy of the
certified copies of the orders for the period of custody in 1999, 2002,
2003 and information received from Jail under RTI for period
10.08.2006 to 18.06.2008 and thereafter since his conviction are
enclosed in support to the I.A. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on
bail as on similar consideration other co-convicts have been granted bail
in other Fodder Scam cases and also in the case of Dr. Krishna Mohan
Prasad @ Krishna Mohan Prasad in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 94 of
2022 in connection with the instant R.C. Case No.47(A)/1996-PAT.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. He
submits that prosecution has successfully established the charges as
against the appellant, both on oral and documentary evidence of having
obtained fraudulent payments. He however submits on instructions that
appellant has completed custody of 893 days, which includes the period
after his conviction up to 31.03.2022 i.e., 2 years 5 months and 13 days
i.e., more than half of the custody.
5. 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 under gone by the appellant in
connection with the instant R.C. Case No. 47(A)/1996-PAT as is also not
disputed by learned CBI counsel. 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.
6. Accordingly, let the 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 the fine amount of Rs.10 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.
7. I.A. No. 1836 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A.Mohanty
