PARVIN JUNEJA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications under Sec. 430 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, have been filed on behalf of accused nos. 2 to 5 in C.C. No. 41/2021 titled "Central Bureau of Investigation v. H B Chaturvedi & Ors"on the file of Special Judge (CBI), Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, Special Judge, (PC Act), CBI - 11, seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. The appellants have been found guilty of the offences punishable under Ss. 420 and 471read with Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). Vide the order on sentence dtd. 18/12/2024, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 04 years along with fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 120B of IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 471 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 120B IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Therefore, the maximum period of imprisonment, the appellants will have to undergo is for a period of four years.

(2.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/A5 in CRL.A. 1735/2025 submitted that the latter was diagnosed with rectal cancer in the year 2023 and had undergone a surgery and subsequent chemotherapy process. It was further submitted that though at this point he has no symptoms of the disease and its related ailments, given the advanced age of the A5 and immunity condition of the cancer-recovered person, A5 requires regular checkups and to be kept under constant observation by the doctors to prevent the risk of cancer recurrence. Further, the trial took 15 long years to complete. However, A5 never misused the liberty granted to him during the pendency of the trial while he was on bail. No exceptional reasons or circumstances are there for not suspending the sentence. Reference was made to the dictums in - Angana and Anr. V. State of Rajasthan (2009) 3 SCC 767, Afjal Ansari vs. State of UP (2024) 2 SCC 187, Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, Shravan Kumar vs. State of UP (1985) 3 SCC 658, VK Verma vs. CBI (2014) 3 SCC 485, Ajab & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 1989 supp (1) SCC 601, Vivian Roddick vs. State of West Bengal 1971 (1) SCC 468, Kiran Kumar vs. State of MP (2001) 9 SCC 211, Rajesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi [Crl.A.347/2024, decided on 21/3/2025] and Vishnubhai Ganpatbhai Patel & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat [Criminal Appeal No. 3415/2023 decided on 3/11/2023].

(3.) The applications are vehemently opposed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI, who contended that the appellants/accused persons are repeat offenders and are being prosecuted in multiple cases of the same nature as the present one, all pending trial. Therefore, the learned SPP submitted that, considering the gravity of the offences involved and the involvement of the accused individuals in multiple cases, the present plea for suspension of the sentence do not deserve to be allowed. Further, with regard to the medical ground of appellant/A5 in CRL.A. 1735/2025, it was contended by the learned SPP, that the latter was diagnosed with cancer followed by surgery and chemotherapy in the year 2023.Now he has recovered from cancer and is stable as can be seen from the medical report dtd. 14/1/2026 submitted by the Senior Medical Officer, Central Jail No: 02, Tihar, New Delhi.As far as the appellant/A2 in CRL.A. 1743/2025 is concerned, pursuant to the direction of this court he was taken to AIIMS and examined. All the tests are yet to be completed and so until and unless the tests are not concluded, he may not be granted suspension on medical grounds. Reliance was placed on the dictum in Kishori Lal v. Roopa, (2004) 7 SCC 638 and Jai Bhagwan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2007 SCC Online Del 1502.