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.