SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1030

M. M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR
Shyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2 It is not in dispute that all the other co-accused have been granted suspension of their sentence. The appellant has already spent a considerable amount of incarceration out of the imposed sentence of four years. The appeal before the High Court is of the year 2023 and, therefore, it might take some more time for its disposal.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and suspend the sentence of the appellant till the disposal of the criminal appeal by the High Court.

4. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted bail by suspending the sentence, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court as it deems fit for the aforesaid purpose.

5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top