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. 1010/2018.

2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R. C Case No. 68(A)/1996 vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2018 passed by learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum Special Judge, (AHD) CBI-I, Ranchi, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A of Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for one year. He has been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w (1)(c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for one year. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set of.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant stands convicted on the charge of criminal conspiracy read with allied sections of IPC and not under any substantive offence under Indian Penal Code. So far as conviction for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, acquittal of the appellant in disproportionate assets case has taken away the basis for the allegation under the P.C. Act. So far as charge of criminal conspiracy is concerned, there is no evidence of any meeting of minds of the appellant with other co-accused, either direct or circumstantial. Even in a case involving circumstantial evidence, such circumstantial evidence must lead to no other conclusion other than that the accused was a part of conspiracy and performed his role by acts of commission or omission in the conspiracy alleged. No material evidence has been placed on record that can unequivocally indicate the participation of the appellant in the alleged conspiracy. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the case of conspiracy alleged in respect of all these cases under Fodder Scam were the same as has also been observed by the Apex Court in the case of the appellant i.e Laloo Prasad @ Laloo Prasad Yadav Versus State of Jharkhand and analogous case [(2002) 9 SCC 372]. He submits that this appellant on his conviction in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996 was granted the privilege of suspension of sentence by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though he had undergone only 12 and ½ months of custody out of sentence of five years vide order dated 13.12.2013 passed in S.L.P. (Crl) No. 9803/2013 enclosed to the I.A.. Evidences such as documents and deposition of witnesses in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996 were adopted verbatim and exhibited in the instant case also. Conviction of this appellant in the present case is entirely based on the evidence recorded in R.C. Case No. 20(A)/1996 and no other evidences were adduced by the CBI. As such, the appellant who has remained in custody for more than 11 months against the sentence of five years, deserves to be enlarged on bail, since the appeal is unlikely to be heard in near future. This court may consider the prayer for suspension of sentence favourably keeping into light the opinion rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kashmira Singh Versus The State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 291] followed in the case of Angana and another Versus State of Rajasthan [(2009) 3 SCC 767]. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon inter-alia, (a) statement of approvers which is self exculpatory in nature; (b) alleged proximity of the appellant with the ‘kingpins’; and (c) the alleged failure on the part of the appellant to initiate investigation into the scam to shield the scam accused. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Haricharan Kurmi and Jogi