Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Arunkumar vs The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 23 March, 2026
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 854/2024
ARUNKUMAR & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)
[ONLY I.A. NOS. 36699/2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 854/2024 &
36747/2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 862/2024 ARE LISTED UNDER THIS
ITEM]
IA No. 36699/2026 - GRANT OF BAIL
WITH
Crl.A. No. 862/2024 (II-C)
IA No. 36747/2026 - GRANT OF BAIL
Date : 23-03-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR
Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv.
Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv.
Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv.
Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek S, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2026.03.23
Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv.
16:39:35 IST
Reason:
1
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A No. 36699/2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 854/2024 and
I.A No. 36747/2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 862/2024
These interlocutory applications for grant of
suspension of sentence have been filed in the criminal
appeals challenging the judgment dated 18.10.2022 passed by
the High Court of Madras, in Crl.A No. 36/2022, whereby the
appellants’ appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Mahila Court), Krishnagiri District dated
28.12.2021 was dismissed.
The appellants faced trial in connection with a crime
registered pursuant to FIR No. 425/2016 dated 10.09.2016
lodged with P.S. Sulagiri, District Krishnagiri in respect
of the offences punishable under Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), as regards the appellants in Criminal
Appeal No. 862/2024 herein, and under Sections 304B read
with 109 of the IPC as regards the appellants in Criminal
Appeal No. 854/2024 herein. Section 498A of the IPC was
added as regards the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
862/2024 subsequently.
By judgment dated 28.12.2021 in Sessions Case No.
95/2019, the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Krishnagiri, convicted the appellants in Criminal Appeal
No. 854/2024 herein of the offences under Sections 304B
2
read with 109 of the IPC and awarded a sentence of ten
years of rigorous imprisonment for the offences under
Sections 304B read with 109 of the IPC. The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri also convicted the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 862/2024 of the offences
under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC and awarded a
sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only), in default to
undergo six months imprisonment in respect of the offence
under Section 498A and awarded a sentence of ten years
rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence under
Section 304B of the IPC.
The appellants being aggrieved by the order of
conviction passed by the trial court, filed Crl.A. No.
36/2022 before the High Court of Madras. The High Court, by
the impugned order dated 18.10.2022, dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellants seeking to set aside the order of
conviction passed by the trial court.
This Court, by order dated 04.12.2023, issued notice
in both the criminal appeals. During the pendency of
Criminal Appeal No. 854/2024 and Criminal Appeal No.
862/2024, the instant interlocutory applications bearing
I.A No. 36699/2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 854/2024 and I.A
No. 36747/2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 862/2026 have been
3
preferred by the respective appellants seeking suspension
of sentence during the pendency of the criminal appeals
before this Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the State and perused the material on
record.
Learned counsel for the appellants (who are accused
no.4 and accused no.2 respectively in these appeals)
submitted that these appellants are women who have also
been convicted by the Sessions Court; that they have been
in jail for four years three months and eight days as
actual term but with remission they have completed five
years, which is more than 50% of the sentence imposed on
them. These appellants have a good case on merits. This
Court has granted leave on 09.02.2024 for consideration of
the appeals on merits and the final hearing of these
appeals may take considerable time. In the circumstances,
this Court may consider suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the applicants, who are women.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State
submitted that although the leave has been granted but
having regard to the conviction by the Sessions Court
which has been affirmed by the High Court, the appellants
may not be entitled to any relief at this stage and
4
possibly this Court may notify the appeals for final
hearing and hence the applications may be dismissed.
Considering the facts on record, in our view, the
case for suspension of sentence is made out.
We, therefore, allow these applications and direct
as under:
“The appellants shall be produced before the
concerned trial Court as early as possible and
the trial Court shall release them on bail,
subject to such conditions as it may deem
appropriate.”
The appellants shall appear before the concerned
Court as and when directed to do so.
It is directed that the appellants shall extend
complete cooperation in the hearing of the appeals
before this Court. The appellants shall not misuse their
liberty in any manner.
Any infraction of the conditions may entail
cancellation of the suspension of sentence granted to
the appellants.
With these observations, the interlocutory
applications are allowed.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 5 6