GOPAL PRASAD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Crl. M.B. filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. by the applicant Gopal Prasad seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

(2.) Vide order dated 02.02.2019, the applicant was sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs. 65,00,000/- for the offence under section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months' simple imprisonment. Applicant was also sentenced to seven years RI with fine of Rs. 50,000 for the offence under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. He was further sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months SI. He was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one year' simple imprisonment. He was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. He was further sentenced to five years' RI with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant has been given the benefit of section 428 Cr PC.

(3.) It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant is 69 years old. Wife of applicant is 65 years old and his son is living at Agra, U.P. It is further submitted that younger son of applicant died in a road accident in 2006 and since then his elder son is suffering from extreme depression and has stopped working and therefore, besides his own wife, the applicant is financially and emotionally supporting his 44 years old son as well. Applicant is a pensioner and has no other source of income so as to pay the fine imposed by the Ld. Trial Court. Applicant has roots in the society and is a permanent resident of Arga, U.P. and as such, there is no chance of his fleeing or evading the legal process. 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.