- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant having been found guilty for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Court was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six years for one of the offences on the allegation that the appellant being one of the partners of M/s Birsa Live Stock & Feed Addetive, Ranchi and M/s. Medivet, Ranchi either did not supply medicine at all or did supply medicine but not to the extent to which payment was taken but the appellant though was one of the partners of the aforesaid firms had nothing to do with the affairs of the said firms, rather it was his Gauri Shankar Prasad, who was looking entire affairs of the firm and this fact was stated by his father to the Investigating Officer during investigation which would be evident from the evidence of the Investigating Officer and that no evidence was laid by the prosecution to the effect that the appellant was concerned in any manner with the affairs of the business of the aforesaid two firms and that even the CBI did not get the signature of the appellant appearing on the documents verified and as such, the appellant in absence of any evidence showing his involvement with the affairs of the business has wrongly been convicted and hence, he may be admitted to bail. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that as per the plea taken before the Trial Court on behalf of the Gauri Shankar Prasad, father of this appellant as is appearing in paragraph 141 of the judgment, it was this appellant, who was managing the affairs of the company and even the Investigating Officer in course of the investigation did find the said fact to be true which is evident from paragraph 60 of his evidence, though in his cross -examination at paragraph 517 he has said that in course of investigation, Gauri Shankar Prasad had accepted that he himself was looking after the affairs of the aforesaid firms but documents such as supply bills, drafts though which payments were taken, which have been adduced in evidence, go to show that the same bear the signatures of this appellant which never seems to have been denied and that the appellant took payment of the medicine though the same either was never supplied or was supplied but in less quantity whereas the payment was taken of the entire materials claimed to have supplied and this fact has been established by the prosecution by examining the representative of the manufacturing company and other witnesses and thereby it has been well proved that the appellant by committing aforesaid offence put the State to a great loss.
(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 for hearing before that. Bail rejected.;