Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vishal Tulshiram Umare vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 May, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP(CRL.) No.20921/2025)
VISHAL TULSHIRAM UMARE APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted. The short issue for consideration
in the present appeal is whether the appellant is
entitled for the benefit of 427 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the
Cr.P.C.).
2. The appellant has been allegedly involved in
dishonestly stealing ATM pin numbers, card
numbers, and secretly preparing forged ATM cards.
Several FIRs were lodged for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471,
474, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
and various other provisions of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2026.05.20 3. He has been convicted in 10 cases for the
17:37:08 IST
Reason:
offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 468,
1
471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Section 66-C of the Information Technology
Act, 2000, and has been sentenced accordingly.
The first conviction order was passed on
06.11.2020, sentencing him to imprisonment for 6
years. Conviction orders in the other 9 cases
were passed on 18.08.2021 and was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for 5 years in each of the
nine cases.
4. The appellant has relied upon the decision of
this Court in ‘Muthuramlingam & Ors. Vs. State
represented by Inspector of Police’ reported in
(2016) 8 SCC 313 and has filed the present
appeal.
5. In our considered view, both the Courts ought to
have considered the discretion, particularly, by
taking note of the fact that the offences are not
only similar but the conviction is also similar.
6. The appellant is stated to have undergone
incarceration for a period of eight years as of
now, which is more than the conviction rendered
in one case. Certainly, the appellant is entitled
for discretion provided in Section 427 of the
Cr.P.C. in tune with the judgment rendered in the
2
case of Muthuramlingam (supra).
7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to
set aside the impugned order, and hold that the
period of incarceration undergone by the
appellant in one case is to be treated as
governing the other cases as well.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside.
9. We make it clear that this order will not have
any bearing on the conviction per se but will be
only restricted to sentence imposed on the
appellant alone.
10. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
………………………………………………………………………J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
15th MAY, 2026
3
ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-A
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). 20921/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 19-11-2025 in CRLWP No. 55/2025 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur]
VISHAL TULSHIRAM UMARE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 15-05-2026 This petition was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR
Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Adv.
Mr. Kaustubh Kadasne, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made
the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
4
