Jharkhand High Court
Devendra Prasad Srivastava vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 15 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 336 of 2022
Devendra Prasad Srivastava ..... ... Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate.
: Ms Shreesha Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, D.S.G.I.
: Ms Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to D.S.G.I.
------
I.A. No. 4229 of 2023.
06/ 15.09.2023 Heard Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned DSGI, appearing for the
CBI.
2. The aforesaid I.A. has been filed with a prayer to release the
appellant of bail, after suspending the sentence, during the pendency of
the appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted in connection with R.C.
Case No. 47(A)/1996- Pat by the judgment of conviction dated
15.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2022 passed by the
learned Special Judge-V, CBI (AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi for the
offences under sections 120-B read with sections 420,409,467,468,471
and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with a
fine of Rs. 50,000/- for conviction under Section 120-B I.P.C. being
common sentence for all other IPC Offences and R.I. for 4 years with a
fine of Rs. 4 lakhs under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
the P.C. Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In
default, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months
separately for each of offences.
4. Ms. Shreesha Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant at the outset submits that the appellant is aged about 71 years
and he is facing health issues on several occasions and recently the
appellant was having the chest pain and thereafter he was referred to
RIMS by the Jail Authorities on 18.07.2023, wherein the check up was
conducted in O.P.D. and necessary instructions were issued to the
appellant by the doctor and was advised to undergo several tests
including CAG (Coronary Angiogram) and the concerned doctor also
found heart related problem for which medicines have been prescribed
and advised to get admitted in the Hospital. She submits that apart from
the above, the appellant has already remained in custody for 22 months
and 07 days and only seven weeks are remaining in completing the half
of the sentence. She further submits that the allegations with respect to
withdrawal is concerned, the said period is 1993 onwards. She further
submits that the appellant was not named in the FIR, however, he has
been subsequently chargesheeted. She further submits that the appellant
was not posted at that time in Doranda Treasury. She also draws the
attention of the court to paras-130, 131 and 133 of the judgment of the
learned trial court and submits that the aforesaid aspect with respect to
allegation of withdrawal has been discussed in those paragraphs. She
further submits that on the same set of facts, the other treasury officials
have been acquitted, however, the appellant has been convicted. On
these grounds, she submits that the appellant's sentence may kindly be
suspended, during the pendency of this appeal.
5. The aforesaid prayer of the appellant is being opposed by
Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned DSGI appearing for the CBI on the ground
that the said scam was at the large scale and several officials have been
convicted and Section 120-B of IPC is also involved and in view of that
without completion of half period of sentence, this I.A. may not be
allowed, as that is the precedent in other cases and only on completion
of half of the sentence, the bail has been allowed.
6. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court
finds that the age of the appellant is about 71 years and in view of the
disclosure made in the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the
appellant and also considering the fact that the appellant has remained in
custody for 22 months and 07 days and this fact has not been disputed
by learned counsel appearing for the CBI and in completion of half of
the sentence, only seven weeks time is short and further it has been
stated that during the alleged period, the appellant was not posted at the
Doranda Treasury and on the same set of facts, the other treasury
officials have been acquitted and considering the above, I am inclined to
suspend the sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail.
7. Accordingly, the appellant be released on bail, during the
pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) 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 the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) 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 bailers shall not change
their address or mobile numbers without permission of the learned Trial
Court.
8. I.A. No. 4229 of 2023 is allowed in the above terms and
disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
