Heard on admission.

Perused the record.

Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.9424/2026, which is first application filed undersection 430 of BNSS / 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, under Section 467/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, under Section 468/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, under Section 471/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, under Section 474/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, under Section 477A/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, under Section 409/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and under Section 13(1)(D)/120-B read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Morena, District Morena (M.P.) in Case No. SC LOK 01/2016.

According to prosecution, appellant has faced trial for eight similar type of cases relating to misappropriation of government fund by disbursing the loan to ineligible or non-existing persons through fraud and fabricated documents. It is further submitted that appellant has been convicted in all the eight criminal trials. Counsel for the appellant has argued the application for suspension of sentence mainly on two grounds; first, appellant is aged about 70 years; and second, in similar set of facts, he has been granted the benefit of suspension of sentence in Cr.A.No.2227/2025 vide order dt.18.04.2026. Therefore, a request has been made to release the appellant on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application on the ground that parity would not apply here as period of custody undergone in this case is much lesser than the other cases, in which bail has been granted and, therefore, prayed for its dismissal.

Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.

Having heard the rival submissions and considering the nature of crime, the possible period in hearing this appeal and also the fact that under similar circumstances, the appellant has already been granted benefit of suspension of sentence, this Court is of the considered opinion that till disposal of this appeal, execution of jail sentence awarded to the appellant under the impugned judgment deserves to be suspended. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed on the following conditions :-

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the trial Court concerned on 09.07.2026 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. List the matter for final hearing in its own course.