logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 339 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 19810 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Parties : Ajay Koshal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondent: ------
Date of Judgment : 12-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 389
- Section 302 IPC
- Special Leave Petition

2. Catch Words:
- suspension of sentence
- bail

3. Summary:
The petitioner, convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s refusal to suspend his sentence under Section 389. Counsel argued that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient, highlighting gaps between the last sighting and body recovery and the presence of multiple accused. The State countered that additional witness testimony supported the prosecution and that bail had already been denied. Considering the petitioner had already served eight years and four months, the Court inclined to suspend the sentence and grant bail pending the High Court’s disposal of the petition. The petition was disposed of, ordering the petitioner to be enlarged on bail subject to trial‑court satisfaction.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State.

2. This is a Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the High Court declining suspension of sentence under Section 389. The petitioner stands convicted for Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Ujjain.

3. Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, learned Senior Counsel contends that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and in his submission, the evidence falls short of the parameters required for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri submits that only PW-1 speaks of having last seen the petitioner with accused. Even there he submits that there is a time gap between the last seen and the recovery of the body. He further submits that there are multiple accused in the case.

4. Apart from this Mr. Suri submits that there are no other evidence and the petitioner stands reasonable chance of succeeding in the petition.

5. Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, learned Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh vehemently opposes his submission and submits that the petitioner has been rightly denied bail. Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh submits that on last seen apart from PW 1, PW 5 also supports the prosecution.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments of the parties and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone eight years and four months, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioner and enlarge him on bail.

7. The petitioner shall, pending the disposal of his petition in the High Court, be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
 
  CDJLawJournal