Sunil vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(SC) 38

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 38

SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Sunil – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Wamika Chadha, Adv. Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Vibhor Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Deva Vrat Anand, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rudraditya Khare, D.A.G. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.

Table of Content
1. appellant's prolonged incarceration and appeal delays. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. consideration of lesser role and delay warrants bail. (Para 6 , 10)
3. grant of suspension of sentence and bail ordered. (Para 7 , 9 , 11)

ORDER

2. The appellant, Sunil, is aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in I.A. No. 4061/2025 in C.R.A. No. 6177/2019, denying him suspension of sentence and consequential bail pending the hearing of his criminal appeal.

4. We are informed that there is no possibility of his appeal being heard any time in the near future, as the High Court Bench at Indore is presently dealing with appeals of the years 2010-2012.

6. Given the lesser role attributed to the appellant, Sunil, and the fact that his appeal may not be heard soon, we are of the opinion that he would be entitled to grant of relief at this stage.

8. In addition, the appellant shall be physically present before the High Court on each date of hearing of his appeal.

10. We clarify that we have not made any observations/comments on the merits of the case and any observation made in this order is meant only for the limited purpose of grant of suspensi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document