Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Salim vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). OF 2026
(@ SLP(CRL.) NO(s). 1664/2026)
SALIM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This criminal appeal challenges the order dated
27.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital, in Second Bail Application No. 03 of 2025 in
Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 2024.
The appellant Salim faced trial in connection with a
crime registered pursuant to FIR 403/2015 dated 17.10.2015
lodged with P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar in respect of
the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
By judgment dated 04.04.2024 in ST No. 84/2016, the
Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar convicted the
appellant for the offences under Sections 304, 323, 452,
504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and awarded a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment along
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.27
18:50:02 IST
Reason:
with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section
1
304 of the IPC, a sentence of three months rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under
Section 323 of the IPC, a sentence of two years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence
under Section 452 of the IPC, a sentence of one-year
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the
offence under Section 504 of the IPC and a sentence of
one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-
for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC.
The appellant, being aggrieved by the order of
conviction passed by the trial court, filed Criminal
Appeal No. 423 of 2024 before the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital and the same is pending. During
the pendency of the said criminal appeal, the appellant
filed Second Bail Application No. 03 of 2025 before the
High Court seeking suspension of his sentence. The High
Court, by the impugned order dated 27.11.2025, dismissed
the application filed by the appellant for suspension of
sentence. Hence, the present criminal appeal.
This Court, by order dated 02.02.2026, issued notice
in the instant matter.
2
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Trial Court has imposed sentence of seven years and the
appellant has already completed two and a half years in
jail; that the appellant has a good case on merits.
However, the appeal being of the year 2024 inevitably it
would be delayed in the final adjudication; that three
other accused have been granted relief of suspension of
sentence and bail.
In the circumstances, a similar relief may be granted
to the appellant herein by setting aside the impugned
order subject to the terms and conditions that may be
imposed.
Per contra, learned standing counsel for the
respondent-State contended that the High Court was
justified in declining to grant the relief of suspension
of sentence and bail; that there is no merit in this
appeal and hence, the same may be dismissed.
It was also submitted that if this Court requests the
High Court to consider the appeal expeditiously then it is
unnecessary to release the appellant on bail on suspension
of sentence. He therefore submitted that the appeal may be
3
simply dismissed particularly having regard to the role of
the appellant in the incident.
Considering the facts on record, in our view, the
case for suspension of sentence is made out.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:
“The appellant shall be produced before the
concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the
Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to
such conditions as it may deem appropriate to
impose to ensure his presence in the concerned
proceedings.”
The appellant shall appear before the High Court as
and when directed to do so.
It is directed that the appellant shall extend
complete cooperation in the hearing of the appeal before
the High Court. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty
in any manner.
Any infraction of the conditions may entail
cancellation of the suspension of sentence granted to the
appellant.
4
With these observations, the Criminal Appeal isallowed.
………………………………………………………J.
( B.V. NAGARATHNA )…………………………………………………………J.
( UJJAL BHUYAN )
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2026
5
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-B
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). 1664/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-11-2025
in SBA No. 03/2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital]SALIM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
IA No. 29410/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 29411/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)Date : 27-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANFor Petitioner(s) Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Adv.
Mr. Devansh Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Tapesh Vishnoi, Adv.
Mr. Biswanath Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms. Kumari Rashmi Rani, Adv.
Ms. Rashi Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. Jai Subhash Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Sakir, Adv.
Mr. Narender Kumar, Adv.
Dr. Suresh Bhadkariya, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Pandey, AORFor Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR
Ms. Ishita Bist, Adv.
Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv.
Mr. Navneet Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Criminal Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
6
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
7
