[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Parvin Juneja vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 February, 2026

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                        Judgment Reserved on: 30.01.2026
                                                                   Judgment pronounced on:06.02.2026

                          +      CRL.A.        1735/2025,          CRL.M.A.    38616/2025    &    CRL.M.A.
                                 38643/2025
                                 PARVIN JUNEJA
                                                                                                .....Appellant
                                                         Through:       Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
                                                                        Mr. Shree Singh, Mr. Shubham, Mr.
                                                                        Prashant, Mr. Kamrau, Mr. Rishi, Mr.
                                                                        Varun Garg and Mr. Nishpveha
                                                                        Mittal, Advocates.

                                                         versus

                                 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                                                                                             .....Respondent
                                                         Through:       Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Mr.
                                                                        Changez Khan, Mr. Siddharth and
                                                                        Ms. Mishika, Advocates


                          +      CRL.A. 1743/2025
                                 SANJAY CHATURVEDI
                                                                                                .....Appellant
                                                         Through:       Mr. Sidharth, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
                                                                        Tulika and Mr. Danish, Advocates.

                                                         versus

                                 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                                                                                             .....Respondent
                                                         Through:       Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Mr.
                                                                        Changez Khan, Mr. Siddharth and
                                                                        Ms. Mishika, Advocates


Signature Not Verified    CRL.A. 1735/2025 and connected matters                                    Page 1 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:06.02.2026
14:00:16
                           +      CRL.A. 1750/2025 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 10/2026
                                 SUMIT CHATURVEDI
                                                                                          .....Appellant
                                                         Through:   Mr. Madhav Khurana, Mr. Akshat
                                                                    Kumar, Mr. Adesh, Mr. Sarthak and
                                                                    Mr. Sheezan Hashmi, Advocates.

                                                         versus

                                 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                                                                                         .....Respondent
                                                         Through:   Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Mr.
                                                                    Changez Khan, Mr. Siddharth and
                                                                    Ms. Mishika, Advocates

                          +      CRL.A. 1754/2025
                                 AMIT CHATURVEDI                                        .....Appellant
                                             Through:               Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Nupur, Mr.
                                                                    Manan, Ms. Apurva Gaur, Ms. Anju
                                                                    and Ms. Priya, Advocates.

                                                         versus

                                 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION          .....Respondent
                                             Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Mr.
                                                       Changez Khan, Mr. Siddharth and
                                                       Ms. Mishika, Advocates


                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
                                                         JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 2550/2025 in CRL.A. 1735/2025 CRL.M.(BAIL) 2558/2025 in CRL.A. 1743/2025 CRL.M.(BAIL) 2570/2025 in CRL.A. 1750/2025 CRL.M.(BAIL) 2573/2025 in CRL.A. 1754/2025

1. These applications under Section 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 Sections 420 and 471read with Section 120B of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). Vide the order on sentence dated

18.12.2024, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 04 years along with fine of

₹1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to simple

imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under

Section 420 read with Section 120B of IPC; simple imprisonment

for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section

471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and simple imprisonment for

a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 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 21.03.2025] and Vishnubhai Ganpatbhai Patel &

Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat [Criminal Appeal No. 3415/2023

decided on 03.11.2023].

2.1 It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant/A2 in CRL.A. 1743/2025 that the impugned judgment

suffers from a legal infirmity inasmuch as the accused persons

have been convicted twice for the very same transaction and set of

acts. It was further submitted that there is no conviction recorded

under Section 120B IPC; however, the appellants have

nevertheless been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of one year for the said offence. The appellant has

cardiological issues which requires constant monitoring and

treatment, which would not be possible if he continues in jail.

Reliance has been placed on the dictums in Aasif @ Pasha vs.

The State of UP &Ors. [Crl.A.No. 3409/2025] and Sumeet Suri

vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2026 SCC OnLine Del 44.

2.2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant/A3 in CRL.A. 1750/2025 that the latter aged about 64

years, is suffering from severe diabetic neuropathy. The learned

counsel for A3 drew the attention of the court to paragraph no. 99

of the impugned judgment to submit that A3 has not been named

and no role has been ascribed to him. The findings recorded

pertain only to A1, A2, A4 and A5, who are stated to be the

authorised signatories of the 'No Lien Account' and to have issued

directions to Citibank. A3 is neither shown to be an authorised

signatory nor alleged to have issued any instruction for the

diversion of funds, and the conviction of the appellant is solely

based on the theory of conspiracy. He further submitted that the

pendency of other criminal cases is not a ground to deny the relief

sought. Lastly, A3 was on regular bail during the trial, which

lasted for seventeen years, and he has never misused the liberty

granted to him. Reference was made to the dictums in Shahzad v.

State. 2020 SCC OnLine Del 3782, Aasif vs. State of U.P., 2025

SCC OnLine SC 1644, Radha Krishan Nair vs. State of Kerala

[Crl.A. No. 90/2025, pronounced on 13.02.2025], Sasikumar vs.

State of Kerala [Crl.A.No. 2207/2024, pronounced on

27.02.2025] and Kitendra and Ors. V. State of U.P.,

MANU/SCOR/113900/2024.

2.3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant/A4 in CRL.A. 1754/2025 that the only finding in

paragraphs 98 and 99 of the impugned judgment against A4 is that

of conspiracy, and the only reason A4 has been charged is that he

was one of the Directors. The only involvement of A4 that has

been recorded in the impugned judgment is that he signed the

guarantee agreements at the inception; however, there is no

criminality attached to it, as there is no forgery or fabrication

involved in the signing of the documents at the inception. It is

submitted that A4 is accused of transferring funds from the bank to

a Citibank no-lien account and diverting them from business

purposes, including signing certain payments made through that

account. Since there is neither charge nor conviction under

Sections 406 or 409 IPC, and as Sections 420 and 406 cannot co-

exist, the alleged diversion cannot be treated as an incriminating

circumstance against A4. It was submitted that the allegation that

the funds obtained from the bank were used to purchase old

machines instead of new machines is untenable, as the trial court

itself recorded that bank officials carried out continuous and

regular site inspections. Lastly, it was submitted that the A4's

passport has been impounded, and given that the case is 25 years

old and the appellant has not absconded during this period, there is

no likelihood that he will do so now. In support of the arguments,

reference was made to the dictum in Sumeet Suri vs. State (NCT

of Delhi) 2026 SCC OnLine Del 44.

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

dated 14.01.2026 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.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Kishori Lal (supra) relied on by the public prosecutor was

a case in which the accused persons therein were convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

The High Court by the impugned order granted bail primarily on

the ground that during trial, the accused persons were on bail and

had not misused the liberties granted to them. The prayer for

suspension was opposed by the appellant/ informant supported by

the respondent/ State contending that the accused persons were

involved in a large number of cases and that the appellant/

informant and his family members have been threatened with dire

consequences for having set the law in motion. The Apex Court

reversing the order of the High Court held that the appellate court

is duty bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons

for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution

of sentence and grant of bail. The only factor that was considered

by the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant

of bail was the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the

earlier period when they were on bail. This was held to be wrong

and it was held that the mere fact that during the course of the trial,

the accused persons were granted bail and that there was no

allegation of misuse of liberty is not of much significance. The

effect of bail granted during trial loses significance on completion

of trial, when the accused persons have been found guilty. The

mere fact that during the period when the accused persons were on

bail during trial, there was no misuse of liberty, does not, per se,

warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail.

What really was necessary to be considered by the appellate court

is whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence

and thereafter grant bail. It was further held referring to the earlier

dictums in Vijay Kumar v. Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 and

Ramji Prasad vs. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366 that

in cases involving in conviction under Section 302 IPC, it should

only be in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of

sentence be granted. Holding so, the order directing suspension of

sentence and grant of bail by the High Court was held to be

unsustainable and was set aside.

5.1 Jai Bhagwan (supra) was a case involving conviction

and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act (the PC Act).

In the said case, a Sanitary Inspector, responsible for checking

food being sold in open was caught red handed accepting bribe. He

was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7,

13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and was convicted

to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years and fine under

Section 7 and to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine under

Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In the application for suspension of

sentence during pendency of the appeal, it was argued on behalf of

the appellant/ accused therein that since the sentence awarded was

a fixed term, the Court as a normal rule should suspend the

sentence and rejection of the application should be an exception

relying on the dictum in Kiran Kumar versus State of M.P., JET

2000 (1) SC 208. It was also urged that the complainant in the said

case had not supported the prosecution case fully and that since the

complainant was the prime witness, the testimony of other

witnesses, namely, the panch witnesses, should only be considered

as corroborative having no value in the wake of the complainant

turning hostile. This argument was rejected by this Court and it

was held that the menace of the corruption has to be looked into in

the proper prospective. Corruption cannot be considered as a trivial

offence. When a Health Inspector, responsible for the checking of

food adulteration or food being sold in open, turns corrupt and

accepts bribe, the persons who fall prey to his corruption are those

poor persons who eat unhygienic food. The learned Judge then

discussed about the menace of corruption and held that a perusal of

Section 389 Cr.P.C. would show that suspension of sentence

during pendency of the appeal is not the absolute right of the

convict. The discretion to suspend the sentence vests in the Court

and it is required to be exercised judicially keeping in view all

facts and circumstances and nature of the offence. The Court has to

exercise its discretion with utmost care and caution, balancing

one's right and liberty on one hand and the interest of the society

on the other. It is for this reason that despite the presumption of

innocence being there during appeal, convicts in offences like

murder, ransom kidnapping, culpable homicide, rape etc. are not

normally granted bail, though some of them may get acquitted

after final appeal. In the criminal justice system which we have,

delays have entered for various reasons and is a fact of life. Merely

because there is delay in hearing of appeals, every person

convicted by the trial court cannot be let loose in the society.

Corruption cannot be looked upon as an ordinary crime and has to

be considered as a serious crime eating away the national character

and national wealth. Holding so, the application for suspension

was dismissed.

6. The aforesaid dictums relied on by the learned prosecutor

are not applicable to case on hand because it is neither a case under

Section 302 IPC nor is it a case under the PC Act. On the other

hand, the appellants/ accused persons have been found guilty of

the offence of cheating, using as genuine a forged document and

conspiracy.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, during the course of

hearing, handed over a list of cases pending against the appellants/

accused. It is true that there are about 10 cases pending against the

appellants/accused persons alleging the commission of similar

offences involving crores of rupees. Admittedly, all those cases are

pending trial and in one case, even the Charge is not seen framed.

It is true that merely because the appellants/ accused persons never

misused the liberty granted while on bail, is no ground to

automatically grant them an order of suspension. However, the

circumstances will also have to be taken into account. In CRL.A.

1735/2025, the medical report dated 14.01.2026 of the Senior

Medial Officer, Dispensary, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi

says that he is a diabetic on regular medication and has, a history

of gastro intestinal cancer. He had to undergo a surgery with two

cycles of chemotherapy. In CRL.A. 1743/2025, as per the medical

report date 29.01.2026, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the

appellant/ accused was produced before the AIIMS Hospital for

medical examination. He was examined by the doctor of the

cardiology department, who prescribed necessary medication. He

was advised to undergo certain medical examinations which could

not be completed before the matter came up for hearing before this

Court. He has been called for a review with the test reports to plan

for coronary angiography. In CRL.A. 1750/2025, the medical

report dated 17.01.2026 of the doctor says that apart from other

ailments like diabetes and hypertension, he has peripheral

neuropathy for which he is under treatment. As per medical

records, the appellant/accused has uncontrolled diabetes and had

been put on insulin therapy and strict diet control. He showed signs

of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic neuropathy and the test reports

suggested "sensory motor demyelinating axonal polyneuropathy".

As per reports, the appellant/ accused had acute coronary

symptoms for which he had been stented intra-cardiac 3 times in

2007, 2011 and 2019. On 16.01.2026, he was referred to

Safdarjung Hospital for neurology opinion as he had reported

abnormal sensation in feet with imbalance while walking/

dizziness on standing. He has been advised urgent MRI thoraco

lumbar spine/ NCV four (04) limbs/ SSEP and has been further

referred for cardiology/ endocrinology opinion. As per medical

report dated 14.01.2026 in CRL.A. 1754/2025, the appellant/ A4

has deep vein thrombosis in the left leg with low backache with

hypothyroidism.

8. It is true that in all the aforesaid cases, the present

condition of the appellants/ accused persons have been reported to

be stable and there is no case of any medical emergency. It was

submitted by the learned prosecutor that instead of suspending the

sentence, the appeal itself may be heard and disposed of on merits

and that it would not be conducive to suspend the sentence as the

appellants/ accused persons are involved in multiple cases of

similar nature involving crores of rupees. As noticed earlier, it is

true that there are about 10 other cases of similar nature against the

appellants/ accused. But mere pendency of other cases would also

not be a ground to reject the suspension application unless

exceptional reasons are made out. None of the accused is seen to

have absconded or absented themselves during the course of the

trial. The present appeals are of the year 2025. There is no

possibility of the appeals being taken up in the near future as there

are several old cases and matters in which the accused therein have

served a substantial portion of their sentence. Therefore, it would

be practically impossible for this Court to take up the present

appeals on priority basis and dispose them. Further, the sentence is

only for a fixed term of 4 years. In such circumstances, the

sentence can be suspended on stringent conditions.

9. The sentence shall be suspended during the pendency of

the appeal on execution of personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with two

solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

trial court, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The appellants/accused persons shall appear before

the Station House Officer concerned on all second

Saturdays between 10:30 AM and 1:00 PM.

(ii) The appellants/accused persons shall not commit

any offence(s) while on bail and shall appear before this

Court as and when directed.

(iii) They shall also co-operate in the trial of the other

cases pending against them and shall not seek

unnecessary adjournments and prolong the trial.

(iv) The appellants shall provide their mobile number

and residential address to the Station House Officer

(SHO) concerned, on which they shall remain available.

In case of change of mobile number or residential

address, the appellants shall promptly inform the SHO

concerned as well as this Court.

(v) All the appellants shall surrender their passports, if

not already surrendered before the trial court. If they do

not have a passport, they shall file an affidavit to the

said effect. They shall seek prior permission of this

Court if they intend to go abroad or leave jurisdiction of

the State.

(vi) Needless to say, in the event of violation of any of

the aforementioned condition(s), the suspension of

sentence granted shall forthwith stand cancelled.