Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that earlier, the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant in connection with the instant R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 was rejected by order dated 10th January, 2019 on merits as well as considering the fact that the appellant had not completed half of the custody as against the sentence of 5 years awarded under the provisions of I.P.C and P.C Act, ordered to run concurrently. It is submitted that the challenge thereto was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10th April, 2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 2451/2019 by refusing to interfere in the matter. As on date, the appellant has undergone more than half of the custody of 30 months against the sentence of five years awarded under the provisions of I.P.C and P.C. Act. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact, following the principle of uniformity, this Court has granted the privilege of suspension of sentence to other such appellants convicted in the fodder scam cases on completion of half of the custody, for eg. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Rana @ Ravindra Kumar Rana in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 208/2018 arising out of R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996, order dated 13th September, 2019. Learned counsel has also referred to the case of other appellants, who have been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence on completion of half of the custody in connection with the instant R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 or other R.C cases under the fodder scam, such as PhulChand Singh convicted in R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996, vide Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 757 of 2018 order dated 3rd May, 2019, Mahesh Prasad convicted in R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 and also 64(A)/1996, vide order dated 19th July, 2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 328 of 2018 and order dated 26th April, 2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 211 of 2018 respectively. Dayanand Prasad Kashyap convicted in R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 has also been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence vide order dated 31st August, 2018 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 331 of 2018 on completion of half of the custody against the sentence awarded. Learned senior counsel for the appellant relying upon the certificate of Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar bearing Letter no. 6764 dated 22nd August, 2020 (Annexure-R/1 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit of CBI filed in the instant I.A), has submitted that the appellant remained in custody during trial for the period 21st December, 2001 till 23rd January, 2002 when he was enlarged on bail in connection with the instant R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996 i.e., total of one month and four days. In the instant case, appellant has been convicted on 24th January, 2018 and since then, he has been in custody till date, except for the period of provisional bail i.e, between 11 th May, 2018 till 30th August, 2018 when he surrendered consequent upon rejection of the prayer for extension of provisional bail by this Court vide order dated 24 th August, 2018. Thus, in total, appellant has remained in custody for more than 30 months by now. Considering the uniform yardstick adopted by this Court, on grounds of parity, appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant in reply to the grounds taken in the counter affidavit of CBI in respect of applicability of Section 427 of Cr.P.C, submits that the question whether the sentences imposed in one or the other R.C. Cases upon the appellant would run consecutively or concurrently, would come to be decided at the stage if the appeals are dismissed. At this stage, CBI should not be allowed to take a vindictive and discriminatory approach vis-à-vis this appellant as such a point has never been taken earlier in connection with the cases of any other convicts/ appellants under the fodder scam cases. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Kashmira Singh Versus The State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 291] and Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh Versus State of Punjab [(2005) 7 SCC 387] para 5 to 8, 11 and 12 on the proposition that bail being a discretionary matter, no inflexible rule can be laid down. Each case would depend upon its own facts and circumstances. Moreover, appeal is unlikely to be taken up for hearing in very near future. Therefore, the appellant who is 73 years old, suffering from various ailments should be enlarged on bail by granting the privilege of suspension of sentence in the instant case on completion of half of the custody. He has not misused the privilege of provisional bail granted earlier Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the decision of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Versus Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and another [(1988) 4 SCC 183, para 16, 17 and 18 in reply to the arguments urged on behalf of the CBI relying upon Section 427 of Cr.P.C

5. Learned ASGI representing the CBI has opposed the prayer, inter alia, on the following grounds:

He submits that in the first place, the contention of the appellant that he has completed half of the custody against the sentence of 5 years in the instant R.C. Case is not correct since the sentence awarded under the impugned conviction would run only after the sentence awarded in connection with his previous conviction under R. C. Case No. 64(A)/1996 is over. Though appellant was granted privilege of suspension of sentence in connection with his conviction under R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996 by order dated 12th July, 2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (S. J.) No. 138/2018 on completion of half of the custody, however, that order has been appealed against by CBI before the Apex Court. As per the instruction furnished to him, appellant has not furnished the bail bond for release pursuant to the order dated 12th July, 2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 138/2018. Appellant was made accused in six cases under the fodder scam in which he has been convicted in four cases i.e. R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996, R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996 R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996 and R.C. Case No. 68(A)/1996. Trial in connection with R.C. Case No. 47(A)/1996 and 63(A)/1996 are underway.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned ASGI representing the CBI and taken into account the facts and circumstances and the grounds urged on behalf of rival parties in support or opposition to the prayer for suspension of sentence. Appellant had moved for suspension of sentence in connection with the instant R.C Case 68(A)/1996 through I.A. No. 1010 of 2018. By order dated 10th January, 2019 prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by this Court on merits and also taking into account that the appellant had not undergone custody for more than half of the sentence of 5 years awarded to him under the impugned conviction in R.C Case No. 68(A)/1996. In the order dated 10th January, 2019, it was taken note of that the appellant had remained in custody for about 11 months only, much less than half of the sentence of 5 years awarded. On being taken in appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been pleased to reject the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2451/2019 preferred by the appellant, by order dated 10th April, 2019. The prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant in connection with other R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996 was also rejected by the order dated 10th January, 2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 138 of 2018. The challenge thereto in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. 2219 of 2019 was also rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the common order dated 10th April 2019 refusing to interfere in the matter. However, on completion of half of the custody against the sentence of three and a half years awarded under the offences under IPC and P.C Act, ordered to run concurrently, in connection with his conviction under R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996, this Court by order dated 12th July, 2019 allowed the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant taking into account that this Court has been following a uniform yardstick in matters of suspension of sentence to the convicts/appellants in the fodder scam cases. Some of the orders passed in the case of other such convicts/appellants in R.C. Cases No. 64(A)/1996 Pat; 38(A)/1996 Pat and 68(A)/1996 were also taken note of. It appears that the order dated 12th July, 2019 has been assailed by the CBI before the Apex Court. The matter is said to be pending. It is also not disputed that the CBI has chosen not to prefer any such appeal against the order granting privilege of suspension of sentence to any other convicts/appellants on completion of half of the custody in connection with their conviction in fodder scam cases, relying upon the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C., including such other appellants referred to in the instant order or the order dated 12th July, 2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 138 of 2018.