R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and leaned counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant, who, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Poultry Veterinary Officer at Regional Poultry farm, Hotwar has been convicted for the offences under Section 420/467/468/471/477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was awarded with maximum sentence for six years for one of the offences on the allegation that the appellant without receiving any materials, such as feed, medicine, etc. granted certificate of receipt of those materials on the basis of which payments were taken by the suppliers but the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing that materials were never supplied to the Poultry farm as none of the witnesses has come forward to establish that fact. On the contrary, stock register seized which has been exhibited in this case would go to show that all the items were received at the Hotwar Poultry farm and that there had been no starvation death of any kind of wards as they were provided with feed and medicine which fact itself shows that feed and other materials including medicines had been supplied and this fact has even been admitted by the prosecution witnesses, such as P.Ws. 14, 29,37,42 and 48. That apart, it is also the case of defence that materials having been received were entered into stock register and some of the medicines, feed materials were sent to Sahebganj and Godda but the Investigation Officer did not investigate this matter which he has admitted in his evidence nor did he take into account the entry made in the stock register and the daily treatment register still came to the conclusion that the materials such as feed and other medicines were not supplied and hence, the appellant has wrongly been convicted in this case and, therefore, keeping in view the detention of the appellant of about 16 months in custody, he may be admitted to bail. Learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submits that this is one of the Fodder Scam cases where the accused persons in connivance with each other issued fake supply order on the basis of a fake allotment letter and the suppliers on the basis of fake receipt of receiving materials took payment putting the State exchequer to a great loss and that so far the appellant is concerned, he though has claimed to have granted receipt on receiving the materials but the prosecution did find that requirement of the materials specially feed was never there to the extent which suppliers claimed to have supplied, rather in case of Yellow Maize, the purchase has been shown to have 9 times more than the actual requirement and similarly, Ground Nut Cake has been shown to have supplied 15 -16 times more than the actual requirement and that case of the defence that some of the materials were transferred to other places has not found to be correct by the trial court.
(3.) REGARD being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected. However, the appellant would be at liberty to move for bail after serving half of the sentence of the maximum sentence imposed by the trial court, if the appeal is not taken up before that.;