ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel representing the CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 4764/2018. 2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996- Pat vide impugned judgment dated 09.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offences under section 120-B read with sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13(2) read with section 13 (1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years each with a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for nine months each separately. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the Learned Trial Court recorded at para-138 and 139 of the impugned judgment and also reference to his statement made under section 313 Cr.PC would show that he was only a Lower Division Clerk in Dumka Treasury during the period 1991-92 to 1995-96. Learned counsel further points out that Bills were received after passing of the drawing and Disbursing officer through the stage of Accountant and the appellant was holding the post of Lower Division Clerk in Dumka Treasury. He has denied his involvement in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused for having caused wrongful loss to the State Exchequer of Rs. 34,91,54,844/-. Learned Court has however considered the statement of PWs 1,2,151,195 and 197 and other documentary evidence to come to an erroneous finding that the accused did not properly inquire the submitted Bills and illegally passed those Bills at 4% commission. This accused had used his post to favour fictitious parties/ suppliers in making illegal payments which caused wrongful loss to the State Government. Learned counsel submits that under the Treasury Code and Rules framed thereunder, Lower Division Clerk like the appellant had very limited role in processing the Bills once it have been passed by Drawing and Disbursing Officer and also through the stage of Accountant. His conviction is therefore based on erroneous findings both in law as well as on mis-appreciation of evidence on record. Appellant was dismissed from service vide order no. 171/2001 on 14.08.2001 in a Departmental Proceeding for the same charges. Appellant is in precarious condition and seeks exemption from deposit of huge amount of fine of Rs. His conviction is therefore based on erroneous findings both in law as well as on mis-appreciation of evidence on record. Appellant was dismissed from service vide order no. 171/2001 on 14.08.2001 in a Departmental Proceeding for the same charges. Appellant is in precarious condition and seeks exemption from deposit of huge amount of fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- each under the offences of I.P.C. and P.C. Act imposed by the Learned Trial Court. Appellant has remained in custody for about 32 months and in such manner, has undergone more than half of the sentence of three and half years awarded in connection with either of the offences. Learned counsel further submits that the Learned CBI Court has not recorded any specific reason for directing the sentences to run consecutively and not concurrently. Learned counsel further submits that the same CBI 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. Incarceration of the appellant for the larger period taking the sentence to run consecutively, would be unjust. He further submits that in case of another co-convict Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha @ Shashi Kumar Sinha in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 803/2018, this Court has been pleased to enlarge the appellant in the circumstances where he has undergone custody for about 28 months against the sentence of three and half years under the offences of I.P.C. and P.C. Act, though sentences were directed to run consecutively instead of concurrently. Appellant prays for similar treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merits. However, he does not dispute that the appellant has remained in custody for about 32 months. He further 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 CBI court. However, 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. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case. However, 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. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant has been convicted for the offences under the provisions of I.P.C. and P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years against each of them, but the sentences have been directed to run consecutively instead of concurrently. Appellant has undergone custody for about 32 months i.e. more than half of the sentence awarded under either of the offences of I.P.C. and P.C. Ac. It further appears that the appellant has been dismissed from service in the year 2001 itself and is out of service. 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 Sardendu Kumar Das @ Saradindu Kumar Das be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-Pat, subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) in the Court below. 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. 6. I.A. No. 4764/2018 stands disposed of accordingly. I.A. disposed of