Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Mukesh Kr. Srivastava @ Mukesh ... vs Union Of India Through Cbi on 2 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 171 of 2022
---
Dr. Mukesh Kr. Srivastava @ Mukesh Kumar Srivastava ---Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Appellant: Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI
---
05/02.05.2022 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. 2213/2022.
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)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and
default sentence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; R.I for
4 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and default sentence under other
Sections of the Indian Penal Code; further R.I for 4 years with a fine of
Rs. 1,00,000/- and default sentence under Section 13 (2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All the sentences
were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
the Assistant Director, Poultry, Chaibasa during the subject period of
the instant AHD Scam concerning fake and fraudulent supplies to AHD
Department at Ranchi. It is submitted that the main allegation against
this appellant like other such Medical Officers/ Veterinary Doctors of
the AHD Department is that he colluded with the accused suppliers and
certified the fake invoices for fraudulent withdrawal of huge amounts of
money from the Government Exchequer on the basis of forged
allotment letters. The discussion about the role of this appellant and the
findings against Doctors of the AHD Department are contained at
para-110 of the impugned judgment. By now the appellant has
undergone more than half of the custody against the maximum sentence
of 4 years awarded. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by applying
the rule of parity vis-a-vis other similarly situated convicts/appellants
who have been released on bail by this Court upon completion of half
of the custody.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. He submits
that the appellant being a Veterinary Officer of the AHD Department
was found to have falsely certified fake invoices submitted by the
suppliers, though no actual supplies were made leading to huge
fraudulent withdrawals from Doranda Treasury on the basis of fake
allotments. However, learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits on the
basis of the instructions received from the CBI that the appellant has
completed about 2 years and 8 months as on date against the maximum
sentence of 4 years imposed upon him.
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 plea of having served more than half
of the custody by the appellant.
6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
noted above and that the appellant has served about 2 years and 8
months against the sentence of 4 years as on date, 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. 50,000/- 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. 2213/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Shamim/
