Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad @ Krishna ... vs Vrs on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 94 of 2022
Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad @ Krishna Mohan Prasad ............Appellant
Vrs.
Union of India through C.B.I. .......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Appellant : M/s Anil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
For the CBI : M/s Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet Sahay,
and Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to ASGI
05/08.04.2022 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made
through I.A. No. 2240 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)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a
fine of Rs. 50.00 Lakh u/s 120 B I.P.C. and R.I. for 5 years with a fine of
Rs. 1.00 crore u/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act and default sentences. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant
(A-106) was the Assistant Director, Planning in the office of Regional
Director, AHD, Ranchi. The allegations, evidences and finding against
this appellant has been discussed in para 145 to 152 of the impugned
judgment by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the learned Trial
Court has erroneously held that prosecution has successfully established
the charges against this appellant, who was holding a key post in the
office of the Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi and was the key
conspirator of the scam. It has also been erroneously held that appellant
was managing the distribution of money for fraudulent withdrawal and
was managing the politicians, media persons and bureaucrats at the same
time. Appellant has also in his defence contended that there is a failure in
the sanction order of prosecution by the Law Secretary, Government of
Bihar sanctioning prosecution against the appellant at the relevant point
of time. Apart from that, it was contended that the subject matter of the
instant case was similar to that of R.C. Case No. 46(A)/1996 in which
appellant has already been prosecuted. Learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant has submitted that appellant is 82 years old and has already
completed more than half of the custody against the maximum sentence
of 5 years awarded under the relevant provisions of IPC and PC Act. A
chart showing details of the custody in connection with the instant R.C.
case 47(A)/1996 is furnished under para 7 of the I.A., which is as under:
Sl. No. Date Month/Days
1 01.12.1998 to 16.03.1999 03 months 16 days
2 27.03.2006 to 11.07.2008 02 years 03 months 16
days
3. 15.02.2022 to till date i.e. 27 days
14.03.2022
The certified copies of the orders relating to his period of custody
during 1998-1999; 2006 till 2008 and thereafter upon his conviction,
have been enclosed in support. It is submitted that this Court has taken a
consistent view in matters of suspension of sentence of the appellant and
the other similar co-convicts. Therefore, appellant may also be enlarged
on bail by suspending his sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. He
submits that appellant being the important official under the Regional
Director, AHD, Ranchi was amongst the key conspirators in causing
fraudulent withdrawal of government money and managing its
distribution amongst key accused persons. The prosecution evidence is
full proof as against him. However, learned counsel for the CBI on
instructions submits that appellant has completed custody of 936 days,
which includes 44 days after his conviction up to 31.03.2022 i.e., 2 years
6 months and 26 days.
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.
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.15 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.
6. I.A. No. 2240 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A.Mohanty
