Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Golu @ Vipin vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2026
1
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.6 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
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No. 27967/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-07-2025
in IA No. 14558/2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Principal Seat at Jabalpur]
GOLU @ VIPIN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 184596/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP AND IA
No. 184595/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 13-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Sk Gangele, Sr. Adv.(N.P.)
Ms. Ritu Gangele, Adv.
Ms. Shamila Iram Fatima, Adv.
Mr. Shamim Ahmed Khan, Adv.
Ms. Vandana Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kausar Raza Faridi, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Exemption Application is allowed.
3. The petitioner was put to trial in the Court of IV Upper
Signature Not Verified
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.07.13
302, 364, 404, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
18:03:57 IST
Reason:
short, “IPC”) respectively and Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act.
2
4. At the end of the trial, the petitioner was held guilty of the
alleged crime and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with
fine of Rs.5,000/-. Along with the present petitioner, three other
co-accused were also put to trial and were held guilty accordingly,
except one who was acquitted of the charge of murder.
5. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, went in
appeal before the High Court as his Criminal Appeal No.10335 of
2023 has been admitted by the High Court. However, in the said
appeal, the petitioner preferred an IA under Section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and prayed for suspension of
sentence and release on bail, pending the final disposal of his
criminal appeal. The High Court declined to suspend the substantive
order of sentence as prayed for.
6. In such circumstances, the petitioner is here before us with
the present petition.
7. We heard Ms. Ritu Gangele, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Raizada, the learned counsel
appearing for the State.
8. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner has been held
guilty of the offence of murder and has been sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment. Ordinarily, when an accused is sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment, the appellate court should be loath in
suspending the substantive order of sentence, unless a strong case
is made out by the convict before the appellate court.
9. In the case at hand, we take notice of the fact that one
identically situated co-convict namely Anku alias Ankush prayed for
suspension of sentence before the High Court. The High Court
allowed the said application vide order dated 13th March 2024. The
Order reads thus:
“Heard on LA. No.7149/2024, which is first application
filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,
for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
sole appellant – Anku @ Ankush.
The appellant has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 302/34 of EPC and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, Section 364 r/w Section
3120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fme of
Rs.5,000/-, Section 404 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2
years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Section 25 (1-b) B of Arms Act
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/-,
with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 10.05.2023 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
District Jabalpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.690/2016.
This first application for suspension of sentence has been
argued on the ground that the last seen theory invoked here was
not duly established by the prosecution evidence; two witnesses
Sanjay Mishra (PW-7) and Shiva George (PW-17) were examined on
this fact as TIP was held in the presence of these two witnesses,
but statements of Sanjay Mishra reveal that he was shown the
photographs of alleged accused persons before the TIP was held;
the statements of Shiva George (PW-17) are also not very reliable
on this point as he claims to have identified all the accused
persons who were on two different motorcycles; his statements
reveal that he only had a fleeing glimpse of the faces of these
persons and had even failed to correctly identify some of them
during TIP. It has also been argued that the police statements of
these two witnesses were recorded on 17.07.2016 while they
allegedly saw the deceased in the company of appellant on
11.07.2016. Long delay and silence in not revealing this important
fact has been questioned by the appellant’s side. It has also been
argued that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of
blood stained weapon or clothes, it cannot be established that
prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond
reasonable doubt. It is argued that in a case of circumstantial
evidence all links of the chain are supposed to be established
beyond reasonable doubt and all the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of guilt and further it should be conclusive in
nature. Citing decisions of the Apex Court in case of R.
Shreenivasa. Vs. State of Kamataka 2023 LiveLaw (SC)751 and Raja
Naykar Vs. State of Chbattisgarb, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 60, a request
has been made to allow the application for suspension of sentence.
State has opposed the appHcation on the grounds that it was
a case of brutal murder where a young man was given 10 incised
wounds and blood stained weapons as well as clothes were recovered
from the appellant for which no explanation was offered. It has
also been submitted that the theory of last seen was established
by the testimony of material witnesses. It is, therefore, prayed
that the application deserves to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for both the sides have been heard and
record has been perused.
Having considered rival submissions of both the sides and
on perusal of record, we are of the considered opinion that till
disposal of this appeal, execution of jail sentence awarded to the
appellant under the impugned judgment deserves to be suspended.
Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this
application is allowed.
4
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount,
if not already deposited and on personal bond in a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the
custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he
shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the
trial Court concerned on 01.07.2025 and on such other dates as may
be fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the aforesaid IA. stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.”.
10. We enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the State
as to why the State at any point of time thought fit to challenge
this order passed by the High Court releasing the co-convict on
bail by suspending the substantive order of sentence. It has been
now more than one year and three months that the said order is in
operation. State has not thought fit to question the legality and
validity of the said order.
11. In view of the aforesaid, we are left with no other option but
to accept the plea of the present petitioner for suspension of the
substantive order of sentence and release on bail, pending the
final disposal of his criminal appeal before the High Court.
12. We order that the substantive order of sentence of life
imprisonment shall remain suspended and the petitioner be released
on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may
deem fit to impose.
13. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
