ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 7876/2018. 2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment of conviction 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 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years with a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for nine months separately. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was the proprietor of M/s Magadh Distributors, Rajendra Nagar, Patna and supplies were made to Animal Husbandry Department at Dumka during the period 1991-92 to 1995-96. Petitioner received payment of Rs. 4,97,500/- as lawful payment against supplies made. He pleaded innocence in his statement made under section 313 of Cr. PC. Learned CBI Court has discussed the role of the appellant at para-124 and 125 of the impugned judgment. However, despite no incriminating material evidence on record, it had proceeded to render a finding of guilt on the basis of the statement of certain prosecution witnesses no. 1, 2, 20, 40, 46, 48, 195 and 197 together with certain documentary evidence. Learned court has committed error in holding that the accused has fictitious name and that false supply bills were submitted by M/s Magadh Distributors and that a sum of Rs. 4,95,500/- was received by him. Learned court has wrongly convicted the appellant on the charges of criminal conspiracy for having committed loss of Rs.34,91,54,844/- to the Government revenue. However, Appellant has undergone custody for 22 months and 18 days i.e. more than half of the sentence awarded. As such, he may be enlarged on bail upon grant of privilege of suspension of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the alleged fraudulent withdrawal is assumed to be true for a moment, the fine amount of Rs. 50.00 lakhs is excessive and disproportionate. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. He submits that complicity of the appellant has been established during trial by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 50.00 lakhs is excessive and disproportionate. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. He submits that complicity of the appellant has been established during trial by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. However, learned counsel does not dispute that the appellant has undergone custody for more than half of the sentence awarded. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also that the appellant has undergone half of the sentence awarded by the Learned Trial Court, I am inclined to grant him the privilege of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, let the appellant Rakesh Gandhi @ Sunil Gandhi be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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. 2,50,000/- (Two lakh and fifty thousand) in the Court below and if not wanted in connection with any other case. 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. 7876/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.