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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 276

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ
ARUN DUBEY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026 | SLP(Crl.)No(s).1877/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Ms. Prashasti Singh, Ms. Harshita Bharadwaj, Mr. Ankit Pandey, Ms. Swati Surbhi
For the Respondents: Mr. Surjeet Singh, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker

Bail is granted based on the time already served and the nature of the sentence, pending appeal decision.

Headnote:The Court analyzed the High Court's denial of suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing the appellant's conviction for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Trade Marks Act. The appeal highlighted the long wait for the case hearing. The Court found it justifiable to grant bail considering the time already served and the fixed nature of the sentence. The Court ultimately decided to suspend the sentence pending the appeal’s outcome.

Table of Content
1. considerations for granting bail based on time served and case status. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's decision on suspension of sentence pending appeal. (Para 6 , 7)
3. final ruling on appeal outcomes and pending applications. (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Surjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the State.

3. The High Court has denied suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure /430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 to the appellant who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 468, 471 & 487 and 488 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Baghelan, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh along with fine of Rs.54,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of fixed sentence of 5 years and the appeal in the High Court is of 2025 which is unlikely to be heard in the near future.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is already undergone about 8 months as on today.

6. Considering the fact and circumstances and the fixed sentence that has been imposed and the period already undergone by the appellant and also the time that will be taken for hearing the appeal, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and enlarge the appellant on bail, pending disposal of the appeal before the High Court.

7. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the appellant is suspended and the appellant is enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Baghelan, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No.253/2018 on such terms and conditions as the concerned Trial Judge may impose, pending disposal of the appeal before the High Court.

8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

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

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also 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 Back to top