logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 329 print Preview print print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19761 of 2025]
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Parties : Vikash Kuchbandiya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh\r\n
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ----- For the Respondent: -----
Date of Judgment : 13-01-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389  -
Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, by the impugned judgment and order dated 02nd July, 2025, has rejected the appellant's prayer under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[Cr. PC] for suspension of sentence.

3. Appellant, convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

4. It appears from the custody certificate dated 08th September, 2025 that the appellant has suffered 11 years 5 months and 24 days in custody without remission.

5. The criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr. PC before the High Court has been pending for the last eight years.

6. Co-accused were granted benefit of suspension of sentence by the High Court as well as by this Court.

7. Bearing in mind the number of criminal appeals pending in the High Court, the prospect of early hearing of the appeal of the appellant seems to be remote.

8. Considering the law laid down by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab[(1977) 4 SCC 291], we are inclined to allow the prayer for suspension of sentence and release the appellant on bail.

9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.

10. Appellant be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be fixed by it.

11. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the appeal.

12. Appellant shall, however, diligently pursue the appeal before the High Court. If the High Court finds the appellant disinterested in taking the appeal to its logical conclusion, it may pass appropriate order including cancellation of bail.

13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.

14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

 
  CDJLawJournal