Jharkhand High Court
Nitya Nand Kumar Singh vs Vrs on 6 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 102 of 2022
Nitya Nand Kumar Singh ............Appellant
Vrs.
The Union of India through S.P., C.B.I (AHD Scam) Ranchi .......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the CBI : M/s Prashant Pallav, ASGI, Navneet Sahay,
and Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to ASGI
04/06.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No.
1897 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. 1 Lakh u/s 120 B I.P.C. and R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs.
1 Lakh u/s 13(2) 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-162)
was working as Budget and Accounts Officer under A.H.D., Patna
during the subject period in respect of which, it has been alleged that the
office of Regional Director, A.H.D., Ranchi received about 779
allotment orders under plan, non-plan and MESO head, out of which 502
allotment letters were signed by this appellant. It is submitted that role of
the appellant has been discussed at para no. 136 of the impugned
judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that based on
certain oral and documentary evidence, learned CBI Court has arrived at
an erroneous findings of guilt against the appellant. Appellant has
however completed more than half of the custody as on date as per joint
inspection of record carried out by learned counsel for the appellant and
those representing the CBI. The total period of custody is about 2 years
11 months and 19 days as on date, specifically in the instant R.C. 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 convictions under other R.C.
cases also.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. It
is submitted that the appellant was the Budget and Accounts Officer in
the Headquarters at Patna under whose signature fake allotment letters
were issued on the basis of which fraudulent withdrawal were made in
connivance with the officials of the Regional Directorate, AHD, Ranchi
and suppliers. However, learned counsel for the CBI does not dispute
that the appellant has completed more than half of the custody against
the sentence of 4 years imposed under both the provisions of I.P.C and
P.C. Act and ordered to run concurrently.
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 against the
maximum sentence of 4 years 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 the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) 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. 1897 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A.Mohanty
