Jharkhand High Court
Dayanand Prasad Kashyap vs Union Of India Through C.B.I on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 577 of 2023
Dayanand Prasad Kashyap ..... 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. 8203 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. 29,00,000/-.
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. 1,00,000/- 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
submits that the appellant had no role in preparing supply orders
and out of Rs. 1,41,65,241.30 which was included the bill for
purported supply of medicines and that of mineral mixture, total
supply has been duly made and thereafter the bills were endorsed
and it 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. 1,41,65,241.30 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 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 details of custody period
has been given in para 15 of the I.A. He submits that the appellant
is aged about 72 years and he is having heart and kidney problem
and he has not clear vision in support of his contention he refers to
supplementary affidavit wherein medical prescription has been
annexed issued by the reputed hospital.
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
considered in para 60 of the judgment. He submits that the period
of custody described by the appellant is with regard to other cases
and on another production warrant he has been produced. He
disputes the period of custody of the appellant in the present case.
He submits that leniency is not required. However, he does not
dispute the ailment of the appellant. He submits that the appellant
has not completed half of the sentence and in view of that at this
stage sentence may not be suspended.
7. In view of the above and considering that even if the
argument of the learned A.S.G.I. is accepted that the appellant has
not completed half of the sentence, it appear that the appellant has
already completed 15 months of custody in the present case
without counting the production warrant and a couple of months is
left in completing half of the sentence, 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 even
counting the 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, 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/-
