Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 14 March, 2014
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 99 of 2014
Amit Kumar ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate
For the CBI : Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI
-----
3/14.03.2014. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for CBI on the matter of bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant on being convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of five years for one of the offences of the Indian Penal Code, on being found that this appellant, without supplying the medicines/materials did withdraw huge amount and thereby put the State to a huge loss.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that though the allegation has been made against the appellant that the appellant, without supplying the materials raised the bills on the basis of which, huge amount was withdrawn, but there has been no allegation whatsoever that this appellant did all these acts in connivance with other convicts. Had there been connivance with the other officials of the A.H.D., he would have made an accused in other fodder scam cases but that is not so and thereby, it can be said that the appellant has become the victim of the circumstances and, therefore, the appellant be admitted to bail as he has already served sentence for about one year as against the maximum sentence of five years imposed and that other co-convicts have been admitted to bail.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submits that categorical evidence is there of P.W.3, who has deposed that father of this appellant namely, Kashi Nath Prasad Sinha, was D.A.H.O, Godda in the years 1992 to 1994, during which period, a Firm, in the name of M/s Asha Pharmaceuticals was opened, proprietors of which were this appellant and his mother. Since the Firm was new, question of supplying medicines/materials in such a huge quantity does not arise.
Moreover, he has further gone to depose that the appellant used to raise bills upon which false certificates were being given by the then TVOs of receiving the materials, though materials had not been supplied on the basis of which, amount was being withdrawn and thereby, a loss to the extent of Rs.13,9,936/- has been caused and that the appellant has not served half of the sentence of the maximum sentence imposed and, therefore, he, presently, does not deserve to be admitted on bail, as the persons, who had served half of the sentence of the maximum sentence imposed, have been granted bail.
In view of the submission as highlighted on behalf of the CBI, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant and hence, prayer for bail is, hereby, rejected.
However, the appellant would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, after serving half of the sentence of the maximum sentence imposed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/