Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad vs Union Of India Through C.B.I on 13 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 130 of 2022
---
Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad --- --- Appellant
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellant: Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to ASGI
---
06/ 13.05.2022 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.
2542/2022.
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)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine
of Rs. 50,000/- and default sentence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code;
R.I for four years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and default sentence under sections
420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for four years
with a fine of Rs. 10.00 lakh and default sentence under section 13(2) read with
section 13(1)(d) of 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-109) was
the District Animal Husbandry Officer at Ranchi and Chaibasa during the subject
period of scam. The case of the appellant and other veterinary officers / doctors of
Animal Husbandry Department has been discussed at paragraph-110 onwards in
the impugned judgment. It was alleged by the CBI that the appellant had given
false certificate to about 133 CNC Bills which resulted in fraudulent withdrawal to
the tune of Rs. 7,71,03,124/- from the Animal Husbandry Department in
connivance with the suppliers without actual supply being made on the basis of
fake allotment letters. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that CBI has not
been able to establish the charges on the basis of materials on record. Learned CBI
Court has also recorded that there are no direct evidence of gratification or
pecuniary benefits, though involvement of doctors who have falsely certified the
supplier bills, can be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. It is submitted
that the appellant has completed about five days less than half of the custody as on
date i.e. 01 year 11 months and 26 days against the maximum sentence of four
years awarded and on the principles of parity, he may be enlarged on bail as
similarly placed co-convicts / appellants have been granted bail on completion of
half of the custody not only in connection with the instant R.C. case but conviction
under other R.C. cases also. It is submitted that since summer vacation of this
Court is to start from tomorrow i.e. 14.05.2022 and the court is opening on
06.06.2022, the appellant would be completing half of the custody i.e. 24 months
on 18.05.2022, though it may not be possible for him to seek his release during the
ensuing summer vacation. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail as eventual
release may also take few days' time.
4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer. She submits that the
entire scam could happen with the active connivance of the doctors of AHD
Department including the appellant who was DAHO, Ranchi and Chaibasa during
the subject period on account of false certification of fake invoices of the suppliers
without being any valid allotment letters. Therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellant on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the prosecuting agency. She however also submits that joint inspection carried out
by the learned counsel for the parties along with the CBI official has revealed that
the appellant has undergone custody for about 01 year 11 month and 26 days till
date against the maximum sentence of four years awarded under the I.P.C and P.C.
Act and ordered to run concurrently.
5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
the facts and circumstances noted above and the materials placed on record and
also the period of custody of about five days less than half of the custody
undergone by the appellant till date, I am inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail
by granting privilege of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, let the appellant- Dr.
Gauri Shankar Prasa 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 Rs. 1.00
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.
6. I.A. No. 2542/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
