Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I ... on 6 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 203 of 2022
---
Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma --- --- Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I (AHD) --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
For the Appellant: Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to ASGI
---
04/ 06.05.2022 Admit.
2. 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.
3. 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.
3144/2022.
4. 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. 5.00 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.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the role of the appellant
(A-90) has been discussed by the learned CBI Court at paragraph-271 to 274 of the
impugned judgment. Appellant was the proprietor of M/s Little Oak
Pharmaceuticals, Calcutta. He is alleged to have received fraudulent payment to
the tune of Rs. 49,89,000/- and odd against various fake supplies of medicines out
of total supply of Rs. 2,16,30,000/- and odd. It is submitted that the appellant has
remained in custody for more than half of the sentence awarded, breakup of which
has been furnished in the interlocutory application and supplementary affidavit has
also been filed in support thereof enclosing the order sheet of the
instant case. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his
sentence on the principles of parity as has been applied by this Court in cases of
similar convicts / appellants under Fodder Scam cases not only in connection
with the instant R.C. case but conviction under other R.C. cases also.
6. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. She submits that
the appellant was involved in fake supplies, though no manufacturing Unit of
such materials were found during the investigation. CBI has been able to
successfully establish the charges against the appellant during trial on the basis
of both oral and documentary evidence. She submits on instruction that the
appellant has remained in custody for about 02 years 02 month and 11 days till
date against the maximum sentence of four years awarded under the provisions
of I.P.C.
7. 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-Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma 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 R.C. Case No. 47(A)/1996 - Pat, subject to
deposit of Rs. 1.5 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.
8. I.A. No. 3144/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
