Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ
ARUN DUBEY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
| 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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
