HARIT ABHAY MEHTA AND ANRversusCENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION AND ANR

                                                     19.IA.1325.2026.DOC




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1325 OF 2026
                                IN
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2026


Harit Abhay Mehta & Anr                           ...Applicants
      Versus
Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.             …Respondents.

Adv. Viral Rathod a/w Ankita Pandey i/b. Rakesh Kumar Singh,
for the Appellants in Appeal No. 375 of 2026 a/w IA No. 1325 of
2026.
Adv. Jai Vohra i/b. Adv. Amit Munde, Spl. PP, for CBI.
Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State.

                             CORAM:       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                             DATE :       27th AUGUST 2026


P.C.:

1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.      This is an application for suspension of sentence and to

enlarge the Applicants on Bail.

3.      By a Judgment and Order dated 18th March, 2026 in CBI

Special Case No. 35 of 2012, the Applicants have been convicted

for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471

and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Sufiyan Syed - PA                   1/6
                                                    19.IA.1325.2026.DOC

4.     For the major offence punishable under Section 420 read

with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Applicant

Harit Abhay Mehta (Accused No. 2) has been sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay fine of Rs. 3 Crore 50

Lakhs and in default suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. The

Applicant Harit Abhay Mehta (Accused No. 2) has also been

sentenced to suffer imprisonment of varying terms for the other

offences for which he has been found guilty.

5.     Whereas, for the major offence punishable under Section

420 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code, the Applicant

Abhay Yashwantlal Mehta (Accused No. 4) has been sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years and pay fine of

Rs. 1 Crore, with default stipulation.     The Applicant – Abhay

Yashwantlal Mehta (Accused No. 4) has also been sentenced to

suffer varying terms of imprisonment for the other offences for

which he has been found guilty.

6.     The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that

Applicant Abhay Yashwantlal Mehta - (Accused No. 4) is 73 years

of age. The amounts which were allegedly credited to the account

of the Applicants were subsequently transferred to the accounts of

the co-accused. The Applicants are not the real beneficiaries of the

Sufiyan Syed - PA                  2/6
                                                   19.IA.1325.2026.DOC

alleged fraud. The Applicants have a fair chance of success in the

Appeal. As the Applicant – Harit (A2) has undergone a sentence of

imprisonment of about five months and Applicant Abhay (A4) has

undergone a sentence of 7 months, and it is unlikely that the

Appeal can be heard in a near future, the sentence of

imprisonment as well as fine be suspended and the Applicants be

enlarged on bail.

7.       Attention to the Court was invited to an order dated 8 th

April 2026 passed by this Court in Interim Application No. 1106 of

2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 2026 whereby co-accused

Ilesh Shah has been enlarged on bail.

8.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 opposed the

prayer of suspension of sentence and release of the Applicants on

bail.    It was submitted that the Applicants were the principal

offenders and direct beneficiaries of the fraud. Having regard to

the magnitude of the fraud, the learned Special Judge was justified

in imposing the fine in the sum of Rs. 3.50 Crore and 1 Crore,

respectively. In the event, the Court is inclined to exercise the

discretion and suspend the sentence, the Applicants be directed to

deposit at least 50% of the fine amount.



Sufiyan Syed - PA                  3/6
                                                      19.IA.1325.2026.DOC

9.     I have perused the material on record.         The maximum

sentence imposed upon the Applicants is of five years. It is a fixed

term sentence. The legal position is well-settled that, when a

convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence, the

prayer for suspension of sentence is required to be considered by

the Appellate Court rather liberally unless there are circumstances

which render the suspension of sentence unjustifiable.

10.    Arguable questions, especially in regard to the quantum of

fine, arise for consideration in the appeal. It is well recognized that

where the statute does not provide a maximum ceiling on the

quantum of fine, the amount of fine to be imposed by the Court

shall not be excessive and exorbitant. The Court is required to

take into account the relevant circumstances which bear upon the

quantum of fine, including the capacity of the accused to pay the

fine as the default in payment of fine         is often visited with

sentence.

11.    The Applicants Harit (A2) and Abhay (A4) are stated to be

in custody for a period of 5 and 7 months, respectively. Having

regard to the large pendency of the cases before this Court, it is

extremely unlikely that this Appeal can be taken up for hearing in

the immediate future.

Sufiyan Syed - PA                   4/6
                                                      19.IA.1325.2026.DOC

12.    It is also well settled that, while exercising the discretion to

suspend the sentence, the Appellate Court is empowered to even

suspend the sentence of fine as well. A useful reference in this

context can be made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Central Bureau of Investigation V/s. Ashok Sirpal1.

13.    In the case at hand, having regard to the quantum of

sentence, the amount of fine imposed by the Court, the situation in

life of the Applicants and the unlikelihood of the Appeal being

decided in the immediate future, this Court is inclined to exercise

the discretion in favour of the Applicants and suspend the sentence

including that of fine and enlarge the Applicants on bail.

14.    Hence the following order :

                                     :ORDER:

       (i)     The Application stands allowed.

       (ii)    The sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge in

CBI Special Case No. 35 of 2012 arising out of CR No.RC/E/2010

upon Harit s/o Abhay Mehta (A2) and Abhay s/o Yashwantlal

Mehta (A4) stands suspended till the final disposal of the Appeal

subject to the Applicant Harit s/o Abhay Mehta (A2) depositing a

sum of Rs. 35 lakhs and the Applicant – Abhay s/o Yashwantlal


1 2024 SCC Online SC 3036
Sufiyan Syed - PA                    5/6
                                                        19.IA.1325.2026.DOC

Mehta (A4) depositing a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs towards the fine

before the Special Court within a period of 10 weeks from the date

of their release on bail.

       (iii) The Applicants be enlarged on bail, on furnishing a PR

Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, with one or two sureties in the

like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.

       (iv)    The Applicants shall not contact, or give threat to any

witnesses in any manner.

       (v)     The Applicants shall surrender their passports before the

Special Court and shall not leave India, without prior permission of this

Court.

       (vi)    The Applicants shall report to the CBI, EOW, on the first

Sunday of every alternate month between 11.00 am and 1.00 pm, till

the final disposal of the appeal.

       (vii) On being released on bail, the Applicants shall furnish their

cell phone numbers and residential addresses to the Investigating

Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change therein.

       Application disposed.



                                                   [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




Sufiyan Syed - PA                     6/6