Dr. Braj Nandan Prasad Verma @ Dr. ... vs Vrs
2022 Latest Caselaw 1636 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 113 of 2022
     Dr. Braj Nandan Prasad Verma @ Dr. B.N.P. Verma             ............Appellant
                              Vrs.
     Union of India through C.B.I. (AHD)               .......... Respondent
                                     .......

     CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

     For the Appellant          : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
     For the CBI                : M/s Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet Sahay,
                                  and Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to ASGI

05/22.04.2022     Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for

the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 2276 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 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 120 B I.P.C. ; R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 420,409,467,468,471 and 477A I.P.C. and R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 2 Lakh u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and default sentences. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant (A-147) was the Assistant Director, Poultry Farm, Hotwar during the subject period of the scam. His role has been discussed by the learned CBI Court at para 110 of the impugned judgment at Serial No. 24 and also at para no. 124 of the impugned judgment. As per the learned Trial Court, appellant had countersigned the fake bills presented by M/s Manas Sales Corporation towards fake supplies, which has led to fraudulent payment. It is the case of the appellant that counter signature was accorded only after actual receipt of the material supplied. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is 85 years old person and has already undergone more than half of the sentence of 4 years under the relevant provisions of I.P.C and P.C. Act. This Court has earlier been pleased to grant privilege of suspension of sentence to several such convicts / appellants in respect of their conviction under different Foddar Scam

cases on completion of half custody. Therefore, this appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.

4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. He submits that the appellant was a doctor in the Animal Husbandry Department posted at Hotwar Poultry Farm upon whose counter signature, without any actual supply of articles, huge fraudulent payments have been made, which have been established on the basis of oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the CBI however does not dispute that the appellant has undergone more than half of the custody i.e., 2 years and 6 days approximately till 20.04.2022.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of 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. 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 50% of the fine amount 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 and the appellant and his bailers shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court.

6. I.A. No. 2276 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

A.Mohanty