R.R. Prasad, J. - (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 earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected on 28.3.2008 by this Court but the appellant has again prayed for grant of bail in the circumstances that under similar situation, co-convict Mukesli Kumar Singh has been admitted to bail by this Court in Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 175 of 2008.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that the appellant said to be one of the partners of M/s. Magadh Chemical Corporation has been alleged to have taken payment along with Smt. Chanchala Sinha without supplying the materials to the Animal Husbandry Department but the appellant is never the partner of the said firm, namely. M/s. Magadh Chemical Corporation, rather one Smt. Chanchala Sinha is the proprietor of the said firm which would be evident from the statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by said Smt. Chanchala Sinha, still the appellant was convicted as it is said that the appellant had received a draft (Ext. 11 /87) worth Rs. 33,000/- but acceptance of the draft and its deposit in the Bank never goes to show the culpability of the appellant, in view of the acceptance of the fact by the prosecution that some materials had been supplied by the said firm and under this situation, the case of the appellant stands on better footing as that of Mukesh Kumar Singh as he has been granted bail taking into consideration that there was one transaction in his name and that nothing was there to show that he did not supply the materials, whereas in case of the appellant it has been accepted by the prosecution that the materials had been supplied worth Rs. 1 lakh and therefore, in absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant took payment without supplying the materials and that payment taken under the aforesaid draft was not concerning with the supply of materials and under this situation, the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail.;