Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swati Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1605 of 2024
(SWATI SINGH Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION)
Dated : 02-02-2024
Shri Abhishek Parashar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ravi Choudhary - Advocate for respondent/CBI.
Heard on IA. No. 2172 of 2024, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of sole
appellant-Swati Singh.
Appellant stood convicted under Sections 419 r/w 120-B of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 03 years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, Section 467 r/w 120-
B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years' RI with fine of Rs.5000/-, Section
468 r/w 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years' RI with fine of
Rs.1000/-, Section 471 r/w 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years'
RI with fine of Rs.5000/- and Section 3(d)/4 of M.P. Recognized Examination
Act, 1937 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year RI with
fine of Rs.100/- vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.01.2024 passed by Special Judge CBI and XII Additional Sessions Judge,
Gwalior in S.T. No.1800241/2015.
As per prosecution story, in P.M.T. Examination conducted by VYAPM
in the year 2010, the appellant impersonified herself as actual candidate Priyanka
Shrivastava and appeared in the examination. Thereafter, the actual candidate
was declared successful. With the passage of time, complaint was received
about fraud played by the present appellant impersonifying herself as actual
candidate and appeared in P.M.T. Examination-2012. After registration of
F.I.R., investigation was conducted. During investigation, incriminating material
was collected and after recording of statements of witnesses, challan was filed.
Thereafter the case was handed over to the C.B.I.. Upon completion of the
investigation, the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. The
Sessions Court upon due appreciation of the evidence placed on record
convicted and sentenced the present appellant as aforesaid.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is
innocent and has falsely been roped in the present case. The conviction is
based on surmises and conjunctures and suffers from patent perversity. The
trial Court has already suspended jail sentence of the appellant upto 23.02.2024.
More so, the appeal is of the year 2024 and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prays for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
P er contra, Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI
opposes the application and supported the impugned judgment with submission
that the appellant had impersonated the co-accused Priyanka Shrivastava and
had appeared in the P.M.T. Examination conducted in the year 2010, hence,
there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore, no exception can be
taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon the contentions so advanced touching the merits of the case, but regard
being had to the fact that jail sentence of the appellant has already been
suspended by the trial Court upto 23.02.2024, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances, jail sentence of the appellant deserves to be suspended during
pendency of the present appeal.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall
remain suspended during pendency of the present appeal and she shall be
released on bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine
amount and on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.1,50,000/- each
(one of which should be local) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. She is
directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 06.05.2024 and on
other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, IA. No.2172 of 2024 stands allowed and closed.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
(ROHIT ARYA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ojha
