ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 8276/2018. 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 section 13(2) read with sections 13 (i)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years each against either of the offences with a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- each against either of the offences and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for nine months each separately. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was posted as a District Animal Husbandry Officer at Dumka for a brief period from 14.07.1995 to 31.01.1996. The offences relate to much larger period from 1991-92 to 1995-96 for large part of which, appellant had no role to play. Appellant in his statement made under section 313 of Cr.P.C. discussed at para-91 of the impugned judgment, has categorically denied causing wrongful loss to Government of Bihar to the tune of Rs. 34,91,54,844/- against valid allotment of Rs. 5,71,000/-. Appellant has also stated that he had only counter signed the signature of Travel Veterinary Officer (M) and denied to issue false certificate relating to receipt of animal feed, medicines and machinery. However, learned CBI court has proceeded to erroneously render a finding of guilt against the appellant for the aforesaid offences based on the statement of prosecution witnesses no. 1, 2, 12, 22, 24, 76, 103, 108, 195 and 197 together with certain documentary evidence. Learned court has wrongly held the appellant responsible for the fraudulent withdrawal, if any, though he had only counter signed the signature of T.V.O.(M) on the supply bills during the period of six months when he was posted there. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the learned CBI Court suffers from error of law and mis-appreciation of evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the learned CBI Court suffers from error of law and mis-appreciation of evidence. Appellant has been convicted for three and half years in connection with the offences under the IPC and three and half 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 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. Appellant may therefore be enlarged on bail after granting him privilege of suspension of sentence. Since the sentences are three and half years each under the aforesaid sections of IPC and P.C. Act, appellant has already undergone more than half of the sentence i.e. 45 months. Incarceration of the appellant for larger period taking the sentence to run consecutively would be unjust. Learned counsel has further stated that another co-convict who was also convicted in the same R.C. case no. 45/1996-Pat by the impugned judgment for separate sentences under IPC and P.C. Act which were to run consecutively instead of concurrently, has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 27.07.2018. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail on grant of privilege of suspension of sentence. Learned counsel has fervently pleaded that the fine amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs each for the offences under IPC and P.C. Act imposed by the learned Trial Court is oppressive, excessive and disproportionate as the appellant was posted only for six months while the fraudulent withdrawal took place for much larger period from 1991-92 to 1995-96. Appellant is financially not in a position to cope with such a huge fine amount. Therefore, he deserves consideration, so far as deposit of fine amount is concerned. 5. Learned counsel representing the CBI has opposed the prayer on merits. He does not dispute that the appellant has remained in custody for 45 months as on date. He however also points out that sentences have been directed to run consecutively and not concurrently. 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. He however also points out that sentences have been directed to run consecutively and not concurrently. 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. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant has been convicted for the offences under the provisions of IPC and P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years as against each of them, but the sentences have been directed to run consecutively instead of concurrently. Appellant has undergone custody for about 45 months i.e. more than half of the sentence awarded under either of the offences of IPC and P.C. Act. As such, I am inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. It appears from the materials discussed by the learned CBI court that the appellant was posted for a period of six months only and not during the entire period from 1991-92 to 1995-96 during which fraudulent withdrawal was made. Accordingly, let the appellant Hemendra Nath Varma @ Hemendra Nath Verma 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. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh) 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. 7. I.A. No. 8276/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.