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. 6382 of 2018. 2. The appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 38A/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment dated 19th day of March 2018 passed by the learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge VII, CBI(AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offences under Sections 120B r/w Section 420,467,468,471,477A of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 Years (Seven Years) and fine of Rs.30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakhs), in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I for 1 (one) year separately. He was further directed to undergo R.I. for 07 Years (Seven Years) and fine of Rs.30,00,000/-(Thirty Lakhs), in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I for 1 (one) year separately for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act. The sentences were directed to run consecutively and not concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was posted as Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department at Santhal Pargana, Dumka between 27.06.1994 to February 1996. He has been implicated in more than one fodder scam cases relating to his period of posting at Dumka division simply on the ground that he was the regional head of the Animal Husbandry department during that period of time. The fraudulent withdrawal were not made by him as part of the conspiracy. Any bills related to supplies of medicines, fodder, equipment etc. were duly signed and certified by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, which was routed through office of the Regional Director, AHD, Dumka. There has been no allegation against the appellant of such nature in any other cases prior to his posting at Dumka. As a Regional Director of the Animal Husbandry Department he was bound to follow the instructions and the allotment letters supplied from the Department. Learned CBI Court has however rendered a finding of guilt against him based on the statements of prosecution witnesses such as P.W.s 37, 48, 55, 93, 97, 99, 110, 116 & 232 together with certain documentary evidences of having caused fraudulent payment of amount to the tune of Rs.3,76,38,853/-from the Dumka Treasury during the period December 1995 and January 1996. Learned CBI Court has however rendered a finding of guilt against him based on the statements of prosecution witnesses such as P.W.s 37, 48, 55, 93, 97, 99, 110, 116 & 232 together with certain documentary evidences of having caused fraudulent payment of amount to the tune of Rs.3,76,38,853/-from the Dumka Treasury during the period December 1995 and January 1996. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code has denied passing any forged bill in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with other co-conspirator. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 24 fake bills were of total amount of Rs.12 crores 47 Lakhs but the appellant has not been found to have misappropriated the entire fake allotments through fraudulent payments. Appellant was a middle level officer of the Department who had a limited role in the entire functioning of the Department even at the divisional level as per the hierarchy of the officers prescribed under the Government rules. Appellant is in custody for 3 year 11 months and 15 days approximately. As per the certificate given by the Jail Authorities of Patna Central Beur Jail vide memo no. 4443 dated 20.11.2001, appellant though was enlarged on bail in connection with this case on 07.08.1997 but was finally released on 13.05.1998 because of his implication in other R.C. Cases also mentioned in the chart attached with the interlocutory application. If this period of custody is counted, appellant has undergone about 41months of custody till date. In other similar cases R.C-77(A)/96, 39(A)/96, 43(A)/1996, 33(A)/1996 and 35(A)/1996, he has been enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal. Appellant is aged about 68 years and is also suffering from serious illness. He had undergone brain hemorrhage and has heart blockage, high diabetes, high blood pressure and cataract in both eyes. He is in continuous need of medical support. He is being treated in jail hospital since he was taken into custody on conviction in the present case. Therefore he may be enlarged on bail after granting him privilege of suspension of sentence. 4. Learned ASGI has opposed the prayer for bail on merits. He has also referred to the statements of prosecution witnesses dealt with by the learned CBI Court at para 133 to 135 of the impugned judgment. Therefore he may be enlarged on bail after granting him privilege of suspension of sentence. 4. Learned ASGI has opposed the prayer for bail on merits. He has also referred to the statements of prosecution witnesses dealt with by the learned CBI Court at para 133 to 135 of the impugned judgment. Learned Court found the appellant as a Regional Director of the Animal Husbandry Department, Santhal Pargana, Dumka during 1995-96 involved in fraudulent withdrawal of fake bills being the drawing and disbursing officer of an amount to the tune of Rs.3,13,41,451/-. The prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. He was a part of criminal conspiracy of Suppliers, AHD officials, Bureaucrats and Politicians who received illegal gratification of lakhs of rupees and Sri Chandradeo Prasad Verma was rewarded for posting him as Regional Director, AHD, Dumka. Appellant, like the previous Regional Director, Shesh Muni Ram, who was in contact with the co-accused Shyam Bihari Sinha, continued with the same manner of fraudulent withdrawal. False receipt were given of the fake bills related to suppliers which were never manufactured. It was inquired by the then Deputy Commissioner, who found that the appellant had been responsible in withdrawal of aforesaid amount in the period December 1995-January 1996. Learned Court on appreciation of all the oral and documentary evidences found the appellant guilty of the charges being a higher officer in the Santhal Pargana Region. Therefore, appellant does not deserves to be enlarged on bail at this stage since he has not even completed half of the sentence awarded. 5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances and the findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment as against this appellant. Appellant was a Regional Director of AHD for the period in question at Dumka. Fraudulent withdrawal of huge amount of Rs.3 Crores 13 Lakhs and odd took place during that period. Learned Court has dealt with the evidences of the prosecution witnesses at length and recorded a finding of his guilt on the basis of the documentary evidences as well. Considering the role and involvement of the appellant, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail by granting his privilege of suspension of sentence as he has not completed half of the custody against the sentence awarded. 6. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. Considering the role and involvement of the appellant, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail by granting his privilege of suspension of sentence as he has not completed half of the custody against the sentence awarded. 6. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. I.A. No. 6382 of 2018 is also rejected.