Jharkhand High Court
Ram Binod Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 18 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 243 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 4024 of 2025
---------
Ram Binod Prasad Sinha ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Anti-Corruption
Bureau ..... Respondent
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Rahul, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Adv.
Mr. Vipul, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
---------
04/18.06.2025
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on
behalf of the Appellant challenging the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2024, passed by Sri
Prabhat Kumar Sharma, Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-
PMLA, Ranchi in Vigilance (Special) Case No. 64 of 2010,
arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No.117 of 2010, by which
the Appellant, namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha has been
convicted for the offence under Sections 409 of I.P.C. and
under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Five (05)
years with fine of Rs.5.00 lakh for the offence under
Section 409 I.P.C. and R.I. for Three (03) years with fine of
Rs.2 lakhs for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section
13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and in default of
payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo S.I.
for Four (04) months and S.I. for Three (03) months
respectively.
However, all the sentences have been directed
to run concurrently and the period already undergone was
directed to be set off.
2. The instant Interlocutory Application has
been filed on behalf of the Appellant for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail during pendency of this
Criminal Appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned
counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin,
learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.
4. It is submitted that the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned court below is illegal, arbitrary and not
sustainable in law. It is submitted that the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed by
the learned court below in absence of original documents
and the learned Court below has committed grave
illegality by relying upon the photocopies of the
documents marked as the Exhibits during trial. It is
submitted that the appellant was in custody from
11.04.2011 and he was granted bail vide order dated
07.11.2014 passed in B.A. No. 7417 of 2014 by the High
Court but he furnished Bail Bonds on 18.08.2015 and
thereafter he is in custody since 30.11.2024, i.e. he
remained in custody for Four (04) years 10 months and
25 days and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special
P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that this
is a case of defalcation of more than Rs.85,00,000/-
(Rupees Eighty Five lacs) and the appellant had connived
with one Rajendra Kumar Jain, Assistant Engineer, who
was also in additional Charge of the District Engineer of
Khunti. It is submitted that almost all the prosecution
witnesses, including the Informant, namely Pradeep
Kindo, i.e. P.W.-5, who was posted as District Planning
Officer, Khunti and the Investigating Officer, namely
Patanjali Ranjan Mishra, i.e. P.W.12, who was posted as
the Dy. S.P., Headquarters, Khunti, have supported the
prosecution case. It is submitted that in view of the above
the bail of the appellant may be rejected.
6. Perused the Lower Court Record and
heard learned counsel for both the sides.
7. It transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged
against the appellant, namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha,
then Junior Engineer and one Rajendra Kumar Jain, then
Assistant Engineer having additional charge of District
Engineer for defalcation of more than Rs. 85,00,000/-
(Rupees Eighty Five Lakh) alleging that they had executed
work of Rs.2,30,000/-, which was a very small part of the
assigned work of Rs.87,99,000/-(Rupees Eighty Seven
lakh ninety nine thousand) and they have got withdrawn
Rs.85,69,000/- out of the said Rs.87,99,000/- by way of
forged documents.
8. From perusal of statement of the
witnesses, it would appear that P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
P.W.7, namely Pramod Kumar, Cashier in Nazarat,
Branch Khunti, Tej Mohammad, Head Master, Rania
Block, Khunti and Bandhan Kullu (then MESO Officer,
retired as Additional Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Ranchi) respectively had proved the
photocopies of the documents of the scheme allegedly not
executed by the appellant, then Junior Engineer and Late
Rajendra Kumar Jain (then Assistant Engineer having the
additional charge of District Engineer), which were
marked as Ext.1, Ext.1/1 and Ext.7, Ext. 7/1 and Ext.
7/2 respectively.
Exhibit 7 is the Enquiry Report submitted
by the P.W.7, who had submitted the Enquiry report in
respect of work not done by the appellant and one Late
Rajendra Kr. Jain, then Assistant Engineer having the
additional charge of District Engineer.
P.W.8, namely Raymond Kerketta is then
Additional Collector, Khunti, Retired Additional Secretary
from Welfare Department, who has also proved Ext.8 and
8/1 (with objection), which were the reports of Nine
schemes.
Ext. 8/2 (marked with objection) is also
the photocopy of forwarding letter dated 21st September,
2010.
9. It further reveals that the I.O. has
admitted during cross-examination that Ext.5 and Ext. 6,
(in Para 22) and Ext. 11 (in Para 30), are the photocopies
of the documents.
10. It reveals that P.W.13, namely Hatim
Tai Rai (then Executive Engineer, NREP, Khunti) has
admitted during his cross-examination that they have not
taken the statement and signature of any local person or
local representative or local Government Servant or Local
Panchayat Member.
11. It also reveals that during pendency of
trial, another person-Rajendra Kumar Jain (then
Assistant Engineer with Additional charge of District
Engineer) had died.
12. It reveals that the appellant was Junior
Engineer at the time of occurrence, whereas Rajendra
Kumar Jain, then Assistant Engineer with Additional
charge of District Engineer.
13. However, neither the learned counsel for
the appellant nor the learned Spl.P.P. could inform as to
whether any departmental proceeding has been initiated
against the appellant or any other person or not.
14. It appears that the appellant has been in
custody since 11.04.2011 till 18.08.2015, i.e. for around
Four (04) year Four (04) months and Seven (07) days.
Thereafter, after passing of judgment of conviction the
appellant is in custody since 30.11.2024 till, i.e. Six (06)
months 18 (Eighteen) days and thus, the appellant has
remained in custody for Four (04) years, 10 (Ten) months
and 25 (Twenty five) days.
15. Considering the period of custody of the
appellant and on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the appellant, namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha is
directed to be released on Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each in connection with
Vigilance (Special) Case No. 64 of 2010, arising out of
Khunti P.S. Case No.117 of 2010, to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-
Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-PMLA, Ranchi, subject to the
condition that both the bailors must be own relative of
the Appellant.
16. Thus, I.A. No. 4024 of 2025 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
