Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Kumar Mehra @ Ravindra Kumar ... vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 22 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 136 of 2022
---
Ravi Kumar Mehra @ Ravindra Kumar Mehra --- --- Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
For the Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: M/s. Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet
Sahay, Shivani Jaluka.
---
03/22.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant made
through I.A. No. 2650/2022.
2. The 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 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 4 years with a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and
default sentence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; R.I for
4 years with a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and default sentence under other
Sections of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
the proprietor of M/s Arke Enterprises, Ranchi. The allegation is that
out of Rs.1,78,80,309/- received by the firm against the supply of cattle
feed and GNC, an amount of Rs.14,00,752/- was established as
fraudulent supply during investigation as registration number of 45
trucks purportedly used for transporting the material were of non-
commercial vehicles. It is submitted that the defence had sought to
demolish the charges on the plea that the prosecuting agency had not
properly investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet hastily.
This would be proved since the investigating agency has also been able
to allege fraudulent payments of Rs.14 lakhs and odd only out of total
Rs.1.78 Crores and odd received by the firm. Case of the appellant has
been discussed at paragraphs-278 to 280 of the impugned judgment.
However, learned Trial Court has rendered an erroneous finding based
on the evidence produced by the CBI. Learned counsel for the appellant
has then submitted that the appellant has completed more than half of
the custody i.e. 24 months against the maximum sentence of 4 years
under the relevant provisions of the I.P.C. A chart showing the total
period of custody served by this appellant in connection with the instant
conviction is furnished at paragraph-7 of the I.A. and supported by the
certified copy of the order sheet passed in RC Case No.47(A)/1996 by
way of a supplementary affidavit. Appellant's production from jail
custody on the basis of production warrant during the period 17 th
February 2003 to 18th July 2003 totaling 5 months and 2 days and 10th
December 2007 till 18th May 2009 totaling 17 months and 16 days, are
duly supported by the order sheets of the learned CBI Court. Apart from
the above period of custody, the appellant is in jail since the date of
conviction i.e. 15th February 2022 till date i.e. about 66 days. Therefore,
the appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence on
principles of parity as other such convicts / appellants in the instant
R.C. Case or other fodder scam cases have been released by this Court
on completion of half of the custody such as Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad
and Dr. Bijayeshwari Prasad Sinha in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.94/2022 and
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100/2022 respectively vide orders dated 08.04.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits
that the prosecuting agency has been able to successfully establish the
charges on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, such as Exbts.
F/a to F/a52 that the appellant's firm had received fraudulent payments
to the tune of Rs.14,00,752/-. However, learned counsel for the C.B.I. is
not in a position to dispute the claim of custody supported by the order-
sheets of the learned CBI Court in the instant R.C. Case enclosed to the
supplementary affidavit.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the
lower court records including the period of custody of about 24 months
and 24 days approximately as on date against the sentence of 4 years
awarded under the relevant provisions of I.P.C., ordered to run
concurrently.
6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
noted above and that the appellant has undergone more than half of the
custody against the maximum sentence of 4 years, I am inclined to
grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during
pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, appellant is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty
five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, subject to
deposit of Rs. 1 Lakh before the 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.
7. I.A. No. 2650/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Shamim/
