Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Kumar Harit @ Rajender ... vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I on 2 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 142 of 2022
---
Rajendra Kumar Harit @ Rajender Kumar Harit--- --- Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: M/s Prashant Pallav, ASGI Shivani Jhaluka, A.C to ASGI
---
03/ 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.
1944/2022.
2. The sole Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No.
47(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 15.02.2022 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 four
years with a fine of Rs. 10.00 lakh and default sentence under section 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code and R.I for four years with a fine of Rs. 10.00 lakh and
default sentence under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian
Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been awarded under Prevention of
Corruption Act, vide impugned order of sentence dated 21.02.2022. All the
sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant (A-102) was
the proprietor of a Transporting Firm M/s Puja Road Lines, Ranchi against
whom CBI alleged transportation of materials relating to AHD booked by the
suppliers to the tune of Rs. 1,23,90,793/- without actually transporting the
materials. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the
learned CBI Court regarding the appellant are contained at para-291 and 292 of
the impugned judgment. Learned CBI Court has, on the basis of certain
prosecution witnesses, come to a finding that there are circumstantial evidence
to establish that the appellant was in conspiracy with other accused persons and
fraudulently withdrew Government money from the Treasury. It is submitted
that apart from the prosecution witnesses therein, there are no other evidence to
show that materials were not transported. The finding rendered by the learned
CBI Court is, therefore, based on erroneous appreciation of evidence on record.
It is submitted that the appellant has undergone custody of more than two years
against the maximum sentence of four years awarded under different provisions
of I.P.C. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI Mr. Prashant Pallav has opposed the prayer.
He submits that the evidence on record produced by the Prosecuting Agency
such as PWs- 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and others fully established the charges against the
appellant during trial. On the claim of custody of more than half of the sentence
undergone by the appellant, he submits that joint inspection of the lower court
records including the order sheet conducted by the learned counsel for both the
parties including the officer of the CBI however, go to show that the appellant
has completed about 02 years and 03 months of custody i.e. more than half of
the sentence. Details of the custody are being submitted in the form of a chart
by learned ASGI Mr. Pallav, which is as under:
Sl. No. Period of custody Months / days
1. 03.07.2000 to 11.10.2000 100 days
2. 11.12.2007 to 11.09.2009 640 days
3. 15.02.2022 till date 77 days
Total period = 02 years 02 months 27 days
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a supplementary affidavit
has been filed enclosing the certified copy of the order sheet of the instant R.C.
Case to substantiate the claim of half custody and the breakup has been given at
para-9 thereof.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
taken note of the materials relied upon from the records including the plea of
the appellant of having served more than half of custody against the sentence of
four years awarded by the learned CBI Court. On consideration of the
submission of learned counsel for the parties and materials on record including
the fact that the appellant has undergone more than half of the custody, I am
inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending the sentence.
Accordingly, let the appellant- Rajendra Kumar Harit @ Rajender Kumar Harit
be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs. 25,000/- 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. 2.00 lakh 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
address and mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court.
7. I.A. No. 1944/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
