JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and CBI on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 4349/2018. 2. Appellant stands convicted in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996-Pat vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2018 and order of sentence dated 24.03.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi for the offences under section 120-B read with sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13(2) read with sections 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years each for either of the offences under I.P.C and P.C. Act with a fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for nine months each separately. However, both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was posted as an Accountant in the office of Regional Director, AHD, Santhal Paragana, Dumka during December 1995-January 1996 which covers the subject matter of the instant R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996-Pat relating to fraudulent withdrawal from Dumka Treasury under AHD Department. The role of the appellant have been discussed by the learned Trial Court at paragraph-136 to 139 of the impugned judgment. The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.PC, has categorically denied that he was in criminal conspiracy with the other conspirators and had been instrumental in fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 3,76,38,853/-from Dumka Treasury by verifying 96 bills. According to him, the Head Clerk Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary was responsible for managing the office and his role was limited as an Accountant in respect of bills which have been passed by the superior officials. The appellant's job was basically in relation to correspondence in the office. He denied extending hospitality to the accused persons like suppliers, officials of AHD Department, politicians, ministers, etc. as he was not part of criminal conspiracy. However, learned Trial Court has on consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witness nos. 37, 55, 93, 99 and 232 and several documentary evidence, erroneously held this appellant liable for the charged offence, though appellant being a Government employee entrusted to scrutinize the bill, was not the drawing and disbursing authority. as he was not part of criminal conspiracy. However, learned Trial Court has on consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witness nos. 37, 55, 93, 99 and 232 and several documentary evidence, erroneously held this appellant liable for the charged offence, though appellant being a Government employee entrusted to scrutinize the bill, was not the drawing and disbursing authority. The appellant has been convicted in R.C. Case No. 45(A)/1996-Pat also by the same CBI Court where he is presently undergoing incarceration against the sentence of three and half years, however sentences have been ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has without any justification, directed the sentences herein also to run consecutively and not concurrently. Appellant has good grounds on merits. He has undergone custody for more than half of the sentence i.e. 21 months and more against the sentence of 3 ½ years awarded against either of the offences of IPC and P.C. Act. He further submits that the same learned CBI Court in similar cases such as R.C. Case No. 64(A)/1996-Pat, while recording conviction under the offence charged therein and awarding sentence, consciously made them to run concurrently and not consecutively. Incarceration of the appellant for a larger period taking the sentence to run consecutively would be unjust. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the case 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 where this Court has been pleased to enlarge the appellant on having undergone custody for more than half of the sentence awarded under either of the offence of I.P.C and P.C. Act. As such, appellant has prayed that he may enlarged on bail upon grant of suspension of sentence. It has been further pleaded that the appellant is aged 78 years old and is in severe financial distress. As such, condition of deposit of the fine amount for grant of bail may be sympathetically considered by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merits. It has been further pleaded that the appellant is aged 78 years old and is in severe financial distress. As such, condition of deposit of the fine amount for grant of bail may be sympathetically considered by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merits. He has also referred to the findings of the learned Trial Court at the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment where it has been held that the appellant was Accountant in the office of Regional Directorate of Animal Husbandry Department at Dumka from where fraudulent withdrawals were facilitated under the AHD Department. However, learned counsel for the CBI does not dispute that the appellant has remained in custody for 21 months and odd i.e. more than half of the sentence awarded under either of the offences under I.P.C. and P.C. Act. He also points out that sentences were ordered to run consecutively in the case of other co-convicts in the present R.C. case by the learned CBI Court. 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. 5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant has been convicted for the offences under the provision of I.P.C and P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I 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 21 months i.e., half of the sentence awarded under either of the offences of I.P.C or P.C. Act . In such circumstances, I am inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, let the appellant Pankaj Mohan Bhui 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 Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996-Pat, subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) in the Court below and if not wanted in connection with any other case. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996-Pat, subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one 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. 6. I.A. No. 4349/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.