Jharkhand High Court
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi (Ahd) on 10 January, 2019
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 138 of 2018
------
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav --- ---- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI (AHD) --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
---
For the Appellant: M/s Kapil Sibbal, Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocates Adit S. Pujari, Prabhat Kumar, Debarsis Mandal, Advocates For the Respondent: M/s. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I, Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Niraj Kumar, Shreesha Sinha, Advocates
---
Reserved on: 04.01.2019 Pronounced on: 10/01/2019
---
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J: Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I representing the C.B.I on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 11057/2018.
2. Earlier, prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No. 528/2018 was rejected by order dated 23.02.2018 on merits and also in view of the fact that he had remained in custody only for a period of one year during trial and two months since conviction as on that date i.e. less than half of the sentence awarded.
3. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996 Pat vide impugned judgment dated 23.12.2017 and order of sentence dated 06.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 ½ years for the offence under Sections 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default in payment thereof , S.I. for ½ year separately. He has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 ½ years for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(i) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default in payment thereof, S.I. for ½ year separately .
4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has renewed the prayer for suspension of sentence inter-alia on the following grounds:
Appellant stands convicted on the charge of criminal conspiracy read with allied sections of IPC and not under any substantive offence under Indian Penal Code. So far as conviction for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, acquittal of the appellant in disproportionate 2 assets case has taken away the basis for the allegation under the P.C. Act. So far as charge of criminal conspiracy is concerned, there is no evidence of any meeting of minds of the appellant with other co-accused, either direct or circumstantial. Even in a case involving circumstantial evidence, such circumstantial evidence must lead to no other conclusion other than that the accused was a part of conspiracy and performed his role by acts of commission or omission in the conspiracy alleged. No material evidence has been placed on record that can unequivocally indicate the participation of the appellant in the alleged conspiracy. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the case of conspiracy alleged in respect of all these cases under Fodder Scam were the same as has also been observed by the Apex Court in the case of the appellant i.e Laloo Prasad @ Laloo Prasad Yadav Versus State of Jharkhand and analogous case [(2002) 9 SCC 372]. He submits that this appellant on his conviction in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996 was granted the privilege of suspension of sentence by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, though he had undergone only 12 and ½ months of custody out of sentence of five years vide order dated 13.12.2013 passed in S.L.P. (Crl) No. 9803/2013 enclosed to the I.A.. Evidences such as documents and deposition of witnesses in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996 were adopted verbatim and exhibited in the instant case also. As such, the appellant who has remained in custody for more than 20 months against the sentence of 3 ½ years, deserves to be enlarged on bail, since appeal is unlikely to be heard in near future. This court may consider the prayer for suspension of sentence favourably keeping into light the opinion rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kashmira Singh Versus The State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 291] followed in the case of Angana and another Versus State of Rajasthan [(2009) 3 SCC 767]. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon inter-alia, (a) statement of approvers which is self exculpatory in nature; (b) alleged proximity of the appellant with the 'kingpins'; and (c) the alleged failure on the part of the appellant to initiate investigation into the scam to shield the scam accused. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Versus State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1184] in support of his submission that the statement of the approvers like Dipesh Chandak and R.K. Das could not be made the basis for conviction of the appellant alone without testing the contents thereof 3 with evidence aliunde. The findings of the learned Trial Court on proximity of the appellant with the alleged kingpins of the Fodder Scam Dr. Ramraj Ram and Dr. S.B. Sinha are also misplaced. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of the prosecution witnesses R.K. Das and Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha and submits that Dr. Ramraj Ram was appointed as Director, AHD on 31.07.1989 before the present appellant became the Chief Minister and continued on that post on account of order of status quo passed by the Apex Court on 08.03.1991 in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2271/1991 and 2306/1991. The said SLP was dismissed in 1996. He submits that contrary to the impression that the appellant was solely responsible for extension of service to Dr. S.B. Sinha who was to superannuate on 31.12.1993, statement of these witnesses itself shows that recommendation had been made for his extension by two years by the Director, AHD, the State Minister as also Dr. Jagannath Mishra, the then leader of opposition. Appellant had accorded extension for one year only as per the prevalent practice in terms of the relevant rules of the Service Code and moreover, there were no adverse report against him at that point of time. It is further pointed out that by the orders of the appellant, 41 FIRs were registered D.D.O wise in relation to fraudulent withdrawals under AHD department in different districts which the CBI later on took over for investigation. Statement of other prosecution witnesses such as Phuleshwar Paswan, V.S. Dubey, etc. also goes to show that the Finance Department had no information about the fraudulent withdrawals prior to 1995. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also referred to the medical report of RIMS dated 28.12.2018 enclosed to the reply to the I.A. filed by the CBI and submitted that his condition is extremely critical. He deserves better treatment outside the State as well. Plea for suspension of sentence has further been urged on an additional ground that the appellant is a Founder and President of Rashtiya Janta Dal, a political party, his presence is absolutely essential in the ensuing General Election to Lok Sabha in the coming months. Therefore, the appellant deserves suspension of sentence.
5. Learned ASGI has strongly opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merits. He submits that the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant on merits earlier was considered and rejected by a detailed order dated 23.02.2018 passed by this Court. He has referred to the contents of the order dated 23.02.2018 and submitted that all these grounds on merits were urged in support of the prayer. This court was not inclined to release 4 the appellant on bail considering the seriousness of the charges and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court against him in the capacity of the Chief Minister of the State as being instrumental in effecting fraudulent withdrawals from Deoghar Treasury under AHD, on the basis of available material evidence on record. As such, appellant who has not undergone even half of the custody i.e. 21 months till date, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail by granting him the privilege of suspension of sentence.
6. It has been brought to the notice of this court that the appellant had preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of rejection. However, being defective, it was not listed before the Hon'ble Court, learned counsel for the appellant had withdrawn the application and thereafter moved this Court for provisional bail.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and circumstances taken note above. This court by a detailed order dated 23.02.2018, rejected the plea for suspension of sentence on merits, more so for the reason that the appellant had not even undergone custody for more than half of the sentence awarded. Later on, appellant was granted provisional bail on medical grounds. However, this court had rejected the prayer for further extension of provisional bail by order dated 24.08.2018 and observed that doctors at RIMS would undertake the assessment of the medical condition of the appellant for the purposes of monitoring and medical management of his conditions. Whether any specialized treatment is required in future would depend on the evaluation and opinion of the doctors at RIMS, Ranchi. In the medical report dated 28.12.2018 furnished by the doctors at RIMS on evaluation of his medical condition, the doctors have not suggested any specialized treatment outside Ranchi for the present. Therefore, this ground cannot be a basis to support the prayer for suspension of sentence at this stage. Appellant has also urged an additional ground that being a Founder and President of Rashtriya Janata Dal, a political party, his release is required to guide the party and carry out all essential responsibilities as a President of the party in the ensuing General Election to the Lok Sabha in the next few months. However, this Court does not find much strength on this plea, more so for the reason that the appellant has been convicted for serious charges of criminal conspiracy and offences under the P.C. Act. The appellant has not undergone custody for half of the sentence out of 3 ½ years awarded to him, as on date. As such, this Court does not find any fresh grounds made out to enlarge the 5 appellant on bail upon grant of privilege of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, prayer made in the I.A. No. 11057/2018 is rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/