JUDGMENT :

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. 11049/2018

2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2018 and order of sentence dated 24.03.2018 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 seven years for the offences under Sections 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 30,00,000/- and in default in payment thereof, S.I. for one year separately. He has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(i) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs. 30,00,000/- and in default in payment thereof, S.I. for one year separately. Both the sentences have been ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that conviction has been recorded against the appellant on the charge of criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has not been convicted independently for the substantive offence under other provisions of Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of the same appellant i.e. Laloo Prasad @ Laloo Prasad Yadav Versus State of Jharkhand and analogous case [(2002) 9 SCC 372] earlier that the conspiracy alleged in respect of all these cases are the same. The evidence in the nature of deposition of witnesses and documents exhibited in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/996 have been adopted verbatim and exhibited in the instant case also. However, on his conviction in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/996, the Apex Court had been pleased to grant him the privilege of suspension of sentence on having served about 12 and ½ months of custody out of the sentence of five years imposed upon him. For the conviction recorded in the instant case on the same set of evidence, the appellant should be enlarged on bail as he has remained in custody approximately 19 months and odd days by now. The fact that this court has been pleased to admit this appeal, in itself, is indicative of a prima facie case made out by the appellant in his favour. Charges of criminal conspiracy have not been established either by any direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, since on the same charge of criminal conspiracy, other public servants including Jagannath Mishra, the then Leader of Opposition, Jagdish Sharma, the then Chairman, Public Accounts Committee, Dhruv Bhagat, Chairman, PAC, Mahesh Prasad, Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Vidya Sagar Nishad, Minister, AHD and R.K. Rana have been acquitted by the learned court. Peculiarly, the appellant who was the Chief Minister, stands convicted for the conspiracy, though other public servants who formed part of the link of conspiracy in the CBI charge sheet, have been acquitted. There is no evidence placed on record to indicate that such public servants who stand convicted being the Secretary or officials of the Department, ever reported to the appellant.

4. Relying upon the opinion rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru [(2005) 11 SCC 600, para-97 thereof], it has been submitted that the conspiracy is seldom an open affair and mostly are proved by circumstantial evidence. The rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Court should not allow suspicion to take the plac