Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Mukesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 May, 2026
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2807/2026
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9139/2026]
MUKESH APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh by the impugned
judgment and order dated 19th November, 2025 has
declined the appellant’s prayer for suspension of sentence
under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
3. The application for suspension of sentence has been
rejected by the High Court despite the fact that the
appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B &
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2026.05.26
17:25:22 IST
Reason: Crl. Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.9139/2026 1
498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been behind bars for little
less than 4 years.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
5. The appellant has voiced a grievance that although he
has an arguable case in his appeal, the appeal may not be
heard at any time prior to his serving out the sentence
having regard to the huge pendency of appeals before the
High Court.
6. The appeal carried by the appellant before the High
Court challenging his conviction and sentence is in exercise
of his statutory right conferred by the BNSS. As noted, he
has spent almost 4 years in custody which is more than half
the period of imprisonment for which he has been
sentenced. Pendency of criminal appeals before the High
Court is quite high and the possibility of the appeal being
heard in the near future is fairly remote. There is, thus, a
genuine apprehension in the mind of the appellant that his
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.9139/2026 2
appeal could be rendered infructuous by passage of time
without the same being taken up for consideration.
7. We are of the further view that the appellant having
served a substantial period behind bars, the High Court
could have fixed a date for final hearing of the appeal
requiring the appellant to argue the same. Had the appellant
declined to argue the appeal finally, rejection of the prayer
for suspension of sentence would definitely been an option
then. No such attempt appears to have been made. In these
circumstances, we fail to comprehend as to what was the
justification for the High Court to deny the relief of
suspension of sentence to the appellant. Declining relief in
such a case has given rise to this appeal, quite
unnecessarily. We, thus, do not find the approach of the High
Court to be justified, on facts and in the circumstances.
8. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside.
9. The sentence imposed by the trial court shall remain
suspended till disposal of the appellant’s appeal before the
High Court and he shall be released on bail, pending
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.9139/2026 3
decision on his appeal, subject to such terms and conditions
as may be imposed by the trial court.
10. We clarify that the observations made in this order and
grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of
the case.
11. The appellant shall actively pursue his appeal before
the High Court and should a prayer for hearing of the appeal
be made, the same may be considered reasonably. If the
prayer is granted by the High Court, the appellant shall
extend due cooperation to take the appeal to its logical
conclusion. In the event of the High Court willing to proceed
with hearing of the appeal but the appellant abstaining from
attending proceedings, the High Court shall be free to pass
appropriate orders including cancellation of bail.
12. Also, if it is brought to the notice of the High Court by
the respondent-State that the appellant has breached any of
the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the High Court
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.9139/2026 4
terms.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
15. The respondent-State shall be at liberty to seek early
hearing of the appeal by citing this order before the High
Court if no attempt is made by the appellant in this behalf.
……………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
……………………………………..J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
New Delhi;
May 25, 2026
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.9139/2026 5
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s).9139/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 19-11-2025 in I.A. No.15007/2025 in C.R.A.
No.16093 of 2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur]
MUKESH Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent
I.A. No.128871/2026-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 25-05-2026 This matter was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samant Singh, Adv.
Mr/Ms.Anu M. Kirutthika, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rudraditya Khare, D.A.G.
Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh GA,
Adv.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR
Ms. Samridhi S. Jain, Adv.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.9139/2026 6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.9139/2026 7
