VIJAY LAKSHMI BANSAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two Crl. M.B. filed under Sec. 389/482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant Smt Vijay Lakshmi Bansal seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

(2.) Vide order dtd. 2/2/2019, the applicant was sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.65,00,000.00 for the offence under Crl.A. 390/2019 Page 1 of 7 sec. 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' simple imprisonment. Applicant was also sentenced to seven years RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 467 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00for the offence under Sec. 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months SI. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one year' simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.6,25,000.00for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00for the offence under Sec. 467 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00for the offence under Sec. 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.12,70,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 467 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00for the offence under Sec. 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment and she was further sentenced to seven years' is RI with fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. The appellant has been given the benefit of sec. 428 Cr PC.

(3.) It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant is 48 years old and has two children aged about 17 years and 20 years. It is further submitted that presence of applicant is necessary to look after her children as husband of applicant is also in JC since February 2019. It is further submitted that applicant's daughter is suffering from migraine, anxiety and depression and is under treatment for the same. It is further submitted that applicant is also not able to pay the educational fee of her daughter and son since she is in jail. It is further submitted that applicant has a clean record. She has a good prima facie case and there is every likelihood of the applicant succeeding in her appeal. Applicant has strong roots in society and has lived at her present address for the last about 15-20 years. It is further submitted that Applicant's young/growing children will also suffer serious prejudice if they are deprived of the applicant's care, custody and supervision in their grown years. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in number of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when an appellant has preferred an appeal against his conviction, suspension of sentence should be considered by the appellate court liberally, unless there are exceptional circumstances. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the appellate court should bestow special concern in the matter, suspending the sentence, so as to make the right of appeal, meaningful and effective. It is lastly submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the applicant's sentence is suspended.