AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned ASGI representing the CBI on the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence made through
I.A. No. 9862 of 2019.
Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2018 and order of sentence
dated 24.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for seven years for the offences under Sections 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.
30,00,000/- and in default in payment thereof, S.I. for one year separately. He has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven
years for the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(i) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs. 30,00,000/- and in default in
payment thereof, S.I. for one year separately. Both the sentences have been ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently.
Earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected vide order dated 10.01.2019, both on merits as also on the ground that
he had not undergone custody for more than half of the sentence awarded till that date even if the sentence were treated to run concurrently and not
consecutively.
Being aggrieved the appellant had approached the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 2219 of 2019 along with two others SLPs
arising out of the orders passed on the same date in case of the appellant in connection with his conviction in R.C. Case no. 64A/1996 and R.C. Case
No. 68A of 1996. The Apex Court vide order dated 10.04.2019, after perusing the relevant materials, was not inclined to interfere in the matter and
the said S.L.P.s were dismissed.
While, pressing the present application, learned counsel for the appellant has inter alia made the following submissions:
It is submitted that in the instant R.C. case, other politicians have been acquitted except this appellant and as such the charge of larger conspiracy has
failed as respects the appellant. He submits that Jagdish Sharma, the then Chairman of the Public Account Committee (PAC) during the period April
1992 to January 1995, a convict in R.C. Case No. 64 A/1996 Pat, was granted bail by this Court on completion of 31 months of custody against a
sentence of 7 years awarded to him by the learned CBI Court vide order dated 14.12.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 193 of 2018 on the
ground that other politicians like the present appellant, the then leader of the opposition Bihar Mr. Jagannath Mishra, successor PAC chairman Mr.
Dhruv Bhagat and other co-accused Ravindra Kumar Rana were imposed with a sentence of 3 ½ years each for the offences under I.P.C and P.C.
Act. By the same principles, the present appellant who is the only politician convicted in the present R.C. Case, should be enlarged on bail as he has
undergone custody for about 31 months against the sentence of 7 years under each of the offences of I.P.C and P.C. Act.
It is further submitted that almost on same set of evidence the appellant was awarded sentence of 3 ½ years in connection with his conviction in
R.C. Case No. 64 A/ 1996 which was related to fraudulent withdrawal under Animal Husbandry Department from Deoghar Treasury whereas this
conviction is in relation to fraudulent withdrawal from Dumka Treasury. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that after rejection of
the SLPs of this appellant, the Apex Court has been pleased to grant bail by suspending the sentence of one of the main accused, the then Regional
Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar in Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2019 by order dated 02.07.2019 taking into
account his period of custody of over 4 years against the sentence of 7 years. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the order dated
10.05.2019 passed in the case of Prakash Kumar Lal Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2019 whereby the said
appellant was enlarged on bail by the Apex Court taking into account that he was aged 70 years with ailing health and he had already undergone more
than 1 ½ years of sentence, which, with remission would be around 2 years. That appellant has been enlarged on bail in connection with his
conviction under R.C. Case No. 68A/1996 by the Apex Court without undergoing half of the custody. As such, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
It is submitted that appellant is undergoing custody in connection with R.C. Case No. 68A/1996 also where he has been imposed with a sentence of 5
years under each of the offences under the I.P.C and P.C. Act to run concurrently. The breakup of the period of custody of this appellant pre-
conviction and post-conviction have been furnished under para 6 of the instant I.A. Besides that, it is submitted that appellant is an old man aged 72
years and suffering from number of ailments which have also been taken note of by this Court while granting the provisional bail earlier vide order
dated 11.05.2018.
Learned ASGI has strongly opposed the prayer. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the CBI. He submits that prayer for bail of this appellant
in connection with his conviction in the present R.C. Case No. 38A of 1996 was pressed on merits taking all available grounds earlier. However, this
Court vide order dated 10.01.2019 rejected the prayer, both on merits and also on the ground that he had not undergone custody for more than half of
the sentence awarded till that date. The grounds urged on behalf of the appellant now were also raised earlier and have been dealt with by this Court
in the order of rejection. Reference is made to para 3 of the order dated 10.02.2019, which refers to the submission relating to the acquittal of other
politicians in the present R.C. Case while the appellant, who was the then Chief Minister stood convicted for the charges. It is further submitted that
the order of this Court has been upheld by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 2219 of 2019 vide order dated 10.04.2019. Appellant
has not completed half of the custody against the sentence of 7 years under either of the offences under I.P.C or the P.C Act and those sentences
have been ordered to run consecutively. The counter affidavit makes reference to the breakup of custody of this appellant at para 26.
It is further submitted that this Court has been following a uniform yardstick in the matter of grant of privilege of suspension of sentence taking into
account the half of the period of custody undergone by such convicts / appellants. Reference is made to the order dated 25.10.2019 passed in the case
of Rajesh Mehra Vrs. The State of Jharkhand through CBI in Criminal Appeal No.251 of 2018 whereby the prayer for suspension of sentence of that
appellant in connection with his conviction in R.C. Case No. 68A/1996 has also been rejected on the ground that he had not completed half of the
custody against the sentence of 5 years awarded to him. The argument that detention of that appellant in connection with other three R.C. cases
should be reckoned for computing the period of custody undergone, has not been accepted by this Court. He submits that challenge to the rejection by
the said appellant has also been rejected by order dated 22.11.2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10288 of 2019. It is pointed out that
the appellant is under the medical supervision of the authorities of the RIMS, Ranchi regarding his ailments. Appellant has however not been able to
make out any ground on medical condition also for his release at this stage. Therefore, prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant does not
deserve to be allowed.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and learned ASGI on behalf of the CBI and taken note of the relevant
material facts and circumstances herein above. It appears that the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected earlier after due
consideration, both on ground of merits and the period of custody by order dated 10.01.2019, which the Apex Court has declined to interfere in Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 2219 of 2019 vide order dated 10.04.2019. Appellant has urged same grounds on merits which have been taken note of and
dealt with in the order dated 10.01.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the case of Jagdish Sharma, convict in R.C. Case No. 64A/1996, the erstwhile Chairman
of PAC, who was granted bail by this Court. A perusal of the order dated 14.12.2018 at annexure I.A.-2 shows that the appellant Jagdish Sharma
was convicted in R.C. Case No. 64 A/1996 Pat, both for the offences under I.P.C and the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years each
with a default sentence whereas the other accused persons in the category of politicians like the present appellant i.e., the then Chief Minister of
Bihar, leader of opposition, Bihar Mr. Jagannath Mishra, the successor Chairman of PAC Mr. Dhruv Bhagat and one Rabindra Kumar Rana, who
were also treated as part of larger conspiracy, were imposed sentence of 3 ½ years each under the offences under I.P.C and P.C Act. The said
appellant Jagdish Sharma had undergone custody for 31 months against the sentence of 7 years imposed upon him compared to other convicted
politicians named above who had been sentenced to 3 ½ years only under the offences of I.P.C. and P.C. Act. Therefore, this Court thought it
proper to grant bail to him by suspending his sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the case of Dr. Om Prakash Diwakar, a convict in the instant R.C. Case No.
38A/1996, who was granted bail by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2019 and that of Prakash
Kumar Lal, who was also released on bail in connection with his conviction in R.C. Case No. 68A/1996 by order dated 10.05.2019 by the Apex Court
passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2360 of 2019. However, it is also true that rejection of the bail application of this appellant, both on merits and on the
ground that he has not completed half of the custody was not interfered by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 2219 of 2019 vide
order dated 10.04.2019.
This Court has been following a uniform yardstick so far as matters of grant of suspension of sentence is concerned on the period of custody.
Appellant has undergone custody for only 31 months, as professed by him, though contested on behalf of the CBI, against the sentence of 7 years
awarded in the instant case under each of the offences of I.P.C and P.C. Act separately. On consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances
noted above, this Court is not inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence of this appellant at this stage. Accordingly, I.A. No. 9862 of
2019 is dismissed.