ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I. representing CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 1280/2018. 2. The appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C.-Case No.68(A)/1996 vide impugned judgment dated 24th January 2018 passed by the learned court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII cum Special Judge (AHD), CBI-I, Ranchi for the offences under Section 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He has also been convicted under Section 120B/467 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; further convicted for the offences under Section 120B/468 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant also stands convicted for the offences under Section 120B/471 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was the proprietor of the supplier firm M/s Jai Bhandar, Aurangabad who is alleged to have made supplies to the Animal Husbandry Department at Chaibasa during the financial year 1992-93 to the tune of Rs. 24,02,500/-. Learned trial court has relied on the statements of P.W.12 Jagjit Rai who was posted as a Manager of Punjab National Bank, Amba Villa Branch, Aurangabad in the year 1998 that the appellant was the proprietor of the said firm and he encashed two bank drafts in Current Account No.119 of the said bank. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that apart from the aforesaid findings rendered at paragraph-24 relating to the role of supplier which is at page-262 of the impugned judgment, there are no other findings relating to the appellant. Appellant has remained in custody for more than half of the sentence awarded. The statements made in I.A. and supplementary affidavit filed on 21st March 2018 have been relied in support thereof. Appellant has remained in custody for more than half of the sentence awarded. The statements made in I.A. and supplementary affidavit filed on 21st March 2018 have been relied in support thereof. According to the counsel for the appellant, the certificate of Beur Jail authorities at Annexure-2 would show that the appellant was in custody at Beur Jail, Patna in connection with the instant case also and he was released on 30th November 2000. He was remanded in the said case on 29th January 2000. The period of his custody at Patna would be about 10 months. Apart from the above, he has remained in custody for different periods including the period 24th April 2006 to 9th January 2008 for a period of 20 months 15 days during trial. After his conviction he is in custody for last two months till date. Therefore, he may be released on bail by granting the privilege of suspension of sentence. 5. Learned A.S.G.I. representing CBI has opposed the submissions on merits. However, as per his instructions, the appellant has remained in custody for the period of about 20 months and 15 days from 24th April 2006 to 9th January 2008 and again after his conviction for two months by now. He is not in a position to doubt the statements made relating to the period of custody at Beur Jail, Patna for about 10 months supported by the certificate of Beur Jail authorities. Taken together he has remained in custody for more than 30 months by now. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the CBI. 7. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that the appellant has undergone more than half of the sentence awarded in connection with the instant case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant-Umesh Dubey be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25000/-(rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII cum Special Judge (AHD), CBI-I, Ranchi in connection with R.C.-68(A)/1996, subject to deposit of the fine amount in the court below awarded by the learned trial court. The appellant would not leave the country without permission of the learned trial court. 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. I.A. No.1280 of 2018 stands disposed of accordingly.