ORDER : 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. 6384 of 2018. 2. The appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 9th April, 2018 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge-VII, CBI(AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 409,420,467,468,471 and 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) under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 409,420,467,468,471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code with 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. Further he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 ½ Years (three and half years) under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 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. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was posted as District Animal Husbandry Officer, Dumka during the period 1st July 1994 to 13th July 1995. The role of the appellant has been discussed by the learned trial court at para-81 and 82 of the impugned judgment. Appellant in the statement has categorically denied having provided certificate without supply of the medicine, fodder and articles in favour of the accused supplier. He had only attested the signature of Touring Veterinary Officer (Mobile). He further denied having been involved in criminal conspiracy with other accused in order to cause wrongful loss to the State revenue. 4. However, learned C.B.I. Court on consideration of the prosecution witness no.1, 2, 12, 76, 79, 195, 197 and 108 together with certain documentary evidence, came to an erroneous finding that this appellant had issued certificate in favour of the supplier who never made supply of the materials to the Department and that those firms were found fictitious during investigation. Learned court also wrongly concluded that he was part of the alleged conspiracy to divert the State exchequer of public money. Appellant has a good case on merits. Learned court also wrongly concluded that he was part of the alleged conspiracy to divert the State exchequer of public money. Appellant has a good case on merits. Besides that appellant has remained in custody for half of the sentence as on date awarded by the learned trial court. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail after grant of privilege of suspension of sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned court has without any justification ordered the sentence to run consecutively instead of concurrently. He further submits that the same C.B.I. Court in similar cases such as R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996 while recording conviction of the accused therein and awarding sentence, consciously made them to run concurrently and not consecutively. He submits that incarceration of the appellant in such circumstances taking the sentence under the I.P.C. and the P.C. Act to run consecutively would be wholly unjust. This Court in the cases of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha @ Shashi Kumar Singh in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No.803/2018 and that of Sardendu Kumar Das @ Saradindu Kumar Das in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.860/2018 arising out of R.C. Case No.45(A)/1996-Pat has been pleased to enlarge the appellants on bail in similar circumstances even though the sentences were ordered to run consecutively instead of concurrently. 6. Learned counsel for the C.B.I has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merits. He submits that appellant was the District Animal Husbandry Officer himself who was also a Drawing and Disbursing Officer who counter-signed the bills for making the fraudulent withdrawals against fake supplies made by fictitious firms. The evidence on record has rightly been considered by the C.B.I. Court to hold a finding of conviction against the present appellant. Learned counsel does not however dispute that the appellant has completed half of the sentence today as against either of the offences under I.P.C or P.C. Act. He also does not dispute that in similar circumstances appellants Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha @ Shashi Kumar Singh and Sardendu Kumar Das @ Saradindu Kumar Das have been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence by this Court earlier in Cr.Appeal (SJ) Nos.803/2018 and 860/2018. 7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances as above. 8. Shashi Kumar Sinha @ Shashi Kumar Singh and Sardendu Kumar Das @ Saradindu Kumar Das have been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence by this Court earlier in Cr.Appeal (SJ) Nos.803/2018 and 860/2018. 7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances as above. 8. On consideration of these facts and circumstances and that the appellant has undergone custody for half of the sentence awarded under either of the offences of I.P.C or P.C. Act and in similar circumstances this Court has been pleased to enlarge the appellants on bail in Cr.Appeal (SJ) Nos.803/2018 and 860/2018, the privilege of suspension of sentence is accorded to this appellant during pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant Fedrick @ Fredi Kerketta 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, CBI(AHD Scam), 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 Lakhs) in the Court below awarded by the learned Trial Court, if not undergoing custody in connection with any other matter. 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. 9. I.A. No. 6384 of 2018 stands disposed of accordingly. Application disposed of.