Dr. Anil Kumar vs The Union Of India Through Cbi
2023 Latest Caselaw 3763 Jhar

                                   1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 689 of 2023


      Dr. Anil Kumar                       .....     ...   Appellant
                               Versus
      The Union of India through CBI
                                             .....       ...    Respondent
                             --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

    For the Petitioner       :       Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
    For the CBI              :      Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
                             :       Ms Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
                             ------
02/ 06.10.2023         Admit.
     2.          Issue Notice.
     3.          Call for the Lower Court Records.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI waives notice on behalf of the CBI.

I.A. No. 8866 of 2023.

5. The sole appellant Dr. Anil Kumar, by way of the aforesaid I.A., prays for confirmation of provisional bail granted to him for 60 days by order dated 28.08.2023, passed in R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII- cum-Special Judge, CBI-II (AHD), Ranchi.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is convicted along with others in connection with R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996 for the offences under section 120B r/w 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and has directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) for the offence under section 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and further rigorous imprisonment for three years to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) for the offence under section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple Imprisonment for six months and further rigorous

imprisonment for three years to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off has been ordered.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was found guilty by the learned trial court only for the issuance of requisitions but during course of trial the contents of the said requisition has neither been proved nor exhibited, rather only the signature of the appellant available in the said requisition was exhibited with objection as Exhibit 126/6. He submits that without exhibits of requisition related to the appellant the learned trial court has held the appellant guilty in this case only on the basis of identification of the signature in one requisition dated 21.10.1994 and the signature of the appellant available on the aforesaid requisition was marked as exhibit 126/6 with objection. He further submits that no requisitions in plain paper with respect to any article has been used by the office of D.A.H.O, Ranchi for the purpose of passing of any bills or for withdrawal of any money. He further submits that total 53 cases had been registered by the C.B.I related to fodder scam and in all the cases the C.B.I had found that the many doctors had issued the requisitions in plain paper but those doctors were not been made as an accused in any of the cases except in the instant case. He further submits that not a single prosecution witness out of total 617 prosecution witnesses have stated anything against the appellant with respect to the involvement of the appellant in the offence. He further submits that the appellant who was posted as T.V.O. at Birbanki, Ranchi and working under the Government of Jharkhand on 22.08.2001 at the time of granting Prosecution Sanction (Ext. 323/2) and no prosecution sanction has granted by the State of Jharkhand against the appellant.

8. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI submits that the case of the appellant has been discussed in para- 36 to 41 of the judgment. He submits that the learned trial court has

passed the said judgment after looking into the evidence available on record and in such type of cases, leniency is not required. However, he does not dispute that the appellant has been imposed the maximum sentence of three years and has been granted provisional bail.

9. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the CBI as well as further considering the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 28.08.2023 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI-II (AHD), Ranchi, in R.C Case No. 48(A)/1996, is confirmed, subject to deposit of 50% of the fine amount before the learned court 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 addresses or mobile numbers without permission of the learned Trial Court.

10. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi/-