ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I representing C.B.I on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 4475 of 2018. 2. The appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 09th day of April, 2018 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge-VII, C.B.I.(A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 ½ Years (Three and Half years) and a fine of Rs.50,00,000/-(Fifty Lakhs), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I for Nine Months (09 months) separately under the aforesaid Sections of the I.P.C. Further he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 ½ Years (Three and Half years) and a fine of Rs.50,00,000/-(Fifty Lakhs), in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I for Nine Months (09 months) separately for the offences under the P.C. Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was Travelling Veterinary Officer (T.V.O) at the District Animal Husbandry Office at Godda for the period 1991-92 to 1995-96. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and his role have been discussed at para 136 and 137 of the impugned judgment. Appellant accepted having certified the submitted vouchers of firm after receiving the supply of material but denied having issued false certificate. He further stated that certification of animal feed, medicine, machinery was made in the light of allotted money and denied receiving false voucher without supply of materials, which caused wrongful loss of Rs.34,91,54,844/-to the Bihar Government revenue. Learned Trial Court, however has, on the basis of prosecution witnesses statements i.e., P.W.1, 2, 12, 108, 111, 195 and 197 and certain documentary evidences concluded that only a sum of Rs.5,71,000/-was allotted to the Animal Husbandry Department during the said period but the accused in an illegal way assessed and passed heavy amount without allotted valid budget. Learned Trial Court also found that supplier firms were not in existence for transportation purpose. Learned Trial Court also found that supplier firms were not in existence for transportation purpose. Thus, the accused who was holding a responsible post misused his position to facilitate fraudulent payments to the private firms in criminal conspiracy with the other co accused. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the findings of the learned C.B.I Court suffers from error of law and misappreciation of evidences. Appellant has been convicted for 3 ½ years in connection with the offences under the I.P.C and 3 ½ years in connection with the offences under the P.C. Act. However, without any rationale, sentences have been directed to run consecutively and not concurrently. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the same C.B.I Court in similar cases such as R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996-Pat, while recording conviction of the accused therein and awarding sentence, consciously made them to run concurrently and not consecutively. Appellant may therefore be enlarged on bail after granting him privilege of suspension of sentence. Since the sentences are of 3 ½ years each under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C and P.C. Act, appellant has already undergone more than half of the sentence i.e., 28 months. Incarceration of the appellant for larger period taking the sentence to run consecutively would be unjust. 5. Learned A.S.G.I representing C.B.I has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merits. He does not dispute that the appellant has remained in custody for 28 months. He however submits that sentences have been ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently. He also points out that sentences have been ordered to run consecutively in case of other co-convicts in the present R.C. Case by the learned C.B.I. Court. He is not in a position to dispute the fact that in connection with other R.C. Case, the same Court has directed sentences to run concurrently and not consecutively such as R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996-Pat. 6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant has been convicted for the offences under the provision of I.P.C and P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 ½ years as against each of them, but the sentences have been directed to run consecutively instead of concurrently. 6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant has been convicted for the offences under the provision of I.P.C and P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 ½ years as against each of them, but the sentences have been directed to run consecutively instead of concurrently. Appellant has undergone custody for about 28 months i.e. more than half of the sentence awarded under either of the offences of I.P.C or P.C. Act. As such, I am inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha @ Shashi Kumar Sinha be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50, 000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Court of Special Judge-VII, C.B.I.(A.H.D. Scam Cases), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-Pat, subject to deposit of the fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Five Lakh) in the Court below awarded by the learned Trial Court. The appellant would not leave the country without permission of the learned Trial Court. He would also submit his passport, if any, before the learned Trial Court. 7. I.A. No. 4475 of 2018 stands disposed of accordingly. I.A. disposed of.