Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Sinha vs Union Of India Through C.B.I on 25 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 110 of 2022
----
Sunil Kumar Sinha .............. Appellant
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I ............... Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
Through: Video Conferencing
--
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate,
For the Resp.-CBI : Ms. Shivani Jhaluka, A.C to A.S.G.I
---
02/25.03.2022 Admit.
Issue notice.
Call for the lower court records in connection with R.C. Case
No.47(A)/1996-Pat from the court of learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I., (A.H.D.
Scam Cases), Ranchi.
Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for confirmation of
provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 15th February 2022 by
learned CBI Court, for which I.A. No. 1802 of 2022 has been preferred.
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 court of Special
Judge-V, CBI, (A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi for the offences under Section
120B read with Section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3
years (three years) under Section 120(B) of I.P.C with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(One Lakh) and in default of payment of fine, has further sentenced for simple
imprisonment of six months; a common sentence for all other IPC offence
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years (three years) with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(One Lakh) and a default sentence. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant (A-59)
was the Proprietor of M/s. Sri Baba Chemical Works, Patna and Director of
M/s. Mastrine Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. The findings on the involvement of
the appellant and three brothers of the appellant, who are also accused, namely,
Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad (A-60), Anil Kumar Sinha (A-61) and Sushil
Kumar Sinha (A-62) are at paragraph nos. 226 to 232 of the impugned
judgment. It is submitted that even the prosecution witness (P.W. 4) has, in his
deposition, stated that this appellant along with his two brothers (A-61) and (A-
62) had nothing to do with the business transaction of the company with the
Animal Husbandry Department since the entire day to day business of this Firm
was managed by Tripurari Mohan Prasad (A-60). Considering the nature of
evidence against this appellant, the learned trial court has imposed maximum
sentence of three years only under relevant provisions of I.P.C and P.C Act with
fine amount. Learned trial court has therefore granted provisional bail to the
appellant by order dated 15th February, 2022, which may be confirmed.
Learned counsel for the CBI submits that the prosecution evidence
including documentary evidence have been discussed as against this appellant
and three other accused, brothers of the appellant at paragraph 262 to 232 and
the allegations have been found to be established. In the opinion of the learned
trial court, evidence on record in such kind of cases could not be appreciated in
isolation for the charge of conspiracy. However, learned counsel for the CBI
does not dispute that the appellant has been imposed maximum sentence of 3
years and granted provisional bail.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant and the C.B.I. and the facts and circumstances noted above,
provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 15 th February 2022 by
the court of learned Special Judge-V, C.B.I. (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi in R.C
Case No. 47(A)/96-Pat is confirmed, 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 bailors shall not change their addresses or
mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 1802 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Jk/
