Shiv Shankar Yadav @ Sheo Shankar ... vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I
2022 Latest Caselaw 4315 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 611 of 2022
             Shiv Shankar Yadav @ Sheo Shankar Yadav, aged about 66 years, son of
             Awadh Lal, resident of Ashok Nagar, Raid No.1H, Kankarbag Colony, P.O. &
             P.S. Kankarbag, District- Patna, State- Bihar          ... Appellant
                                          -Versus-
             The Union of India through C.B.I.                      ... Respondent
                                                With
                                Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 612 of 2022
             Sharadindu Kundu, aged about 70 years, son of Late Sudhir Kumar Kundu,
             resident of House No.11, Ward no.34 Castair Town, Vijay Path, P.O. & P.S.
             Deoghar, District- Deoghar                             ... Appellant
                                        -Versus-
             The Union of India through C.B.I.                      ... Respondent
                                           -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                           -----
             For the Appellants            : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
             For the Opposite Party-CBI    : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I.
                                             Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to Addl. S.G.I.
                                           -----

03/20.10.2022. These appeal have already been admitted on 31.08.2022 and L.C.R.

has been called, which has been received and pursuant to that, it has been listed for considering I.A. No.9564 of 2022 and I.A. No.9542, which have been filed for suspension of sentence, during the pendency of the present appeals.

2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have been convicted under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He further submits that the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.611 of 2022 was the then Sr. T.O.A. in the office of SDE, BSNL, Deoghar and the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.612 of 2022 was the then SDE, BSNL, Deoghar and there is allegation of false certified the forged bill and it has been alleged that Rs.4,62,982/- has been falsely certified. He also submits that there are 16 P.Ws. and so far as P.W.6 to P.W.16 except P.W.15 are concerned, they have clearly stated that they were not present when the work was executed. He further submits that the appellants is in jail custody since the judgment of conviction and earlier they were granted anticipatory bail.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the opposite party-CBI by way of drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment submits that the learned court has come to the finding that how the corruption has been made by the appellants.

4. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering that the appellants were earlier granted anticipatory bail and they have cooperated in the trial and they are in jail custody since the judgment of conviction, I am inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellants. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellants shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No.11(A)/ 2007-R, subject to deposition of fine, as imposed by the learned trial court.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.9564 of 2022 and I.A. No.9542 of 2022 stand disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/