Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India Through C.B.I on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 596 of 2023
Ashok Kumar Yadav ..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through C.B.I. ...... Respondent
----
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate
For the C.B.I :- Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I
Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
----
I.A. No. 8550 of 2023.
04/16.10.2023 This appeal is already admitted on 16.09.2023 and
on 09.10.2023 on the submission of Mr. Anil Kumar, learned
A.S.G.I appearing for the C.B.I. the said I.A. has been placed
today.
2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I., appearing for the
C.B.I.
3. This interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant and release him on bail,
during the pendency of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that by judgment dated 28.08.2023 the appellant is convicted
along with others in connection with R.C. Case No. 48(A)/1996 for
the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, further convicted
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code
and later on 01.09.2023 sentenced the appellant under Section
120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the
Indian Penal Code R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
Further under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code a common sentence for all IPC Sections R.I. for four years
with fine of Rs. 40,000/- and further ordered that in default of
payment of fine, further SI for six months in each Section. All these
sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period
undergone shall be set off has been ordered.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is an approved supplier with AHD, Bihar. He further
submitted that he had no role in preparing supply orders and out of
Rs.21,99,852.75/- which included the bill for purported supply of
medicines, feed and instruments, total supply has been duly made
and thereafter the bills were endorsed which is only presumption
of prosecution that the materials have not been supplied. He
submits that there was no evidence on record to prove that the
appellant did not supply materials worth Rs. 21,99,852.75/- and has
defrauded the said amount and in respect of the rest amount
which has not been supplied, he has no liability as he had supplied
the entire amount falsifying the charges under section 420 of the
I.P.C. He submits that the appellant has remained in custody for
more than half of the maximum sentence awarded in this case. He
submits that the appellant remain in custody from 03.07.2000 to
03.10.2000 (3 months), 01.08.2007 to 20.04.2009 (1 year 8 months
and 19 days), 31.01.2012 to 14.02.2012 (14 days) and
28.08.2023 to till date total 2 years 1 month approx. He submits
that the appellant is aged about 67 years and suffering from several
ailments, lungs and liver problem and to buttress his argument he
refers to supplementary affidavit wherein he has annexed medical
prescription of the appellant.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of
the C.B.I. submits that the case of the appellant has been
discussed in para 43 and 44 of the judgment. He submits that
appellant has not completed half of the sentence. He submits that
leniency is not required. However, he does not dispute the ailment
of the appellant.
7. In view of the above and considering that even if
production warrant is not taken into consideration the appellant
has already completed five months in custody and if the production
warrant is taken into consideration the appellant has completed two
years and one month is custody. Further the appellant is suffering
from various ailments which is supported by supplementary affidavit
wherein medical prescription has been annexed issued by the
reputed hospital and further considering that the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has passed identical order counting the period of
production warrant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 737 of 2018 dated
27.07.2018 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 130 of 2022 dated
13.05.2022 in fodder scam cases, I am inclined to suspend the
sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail. Accordingly, 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 Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-
Special Judge, CBI-II (AHD), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case
No. 48(A)/1996, subject to deposit of 20% 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.
8. The aforesaid interlocutory application is disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
Satyarthi/-
