Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today(October 27) expressed dismay at an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which suspended the sentences of two murder convicts on the condition to plant 10 saplings each as a matter of social cause.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria set aside the April 29 order passed by Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh of the High Court in an application under Section 389(1) of the CrPC for the suspension of jail sentence and the grant of bail. The two accused persons were convicted in 2023 by the Trial Court under Sections 302(murder) and 341(punishment for wrongful restraint) of the IPC.

At the outset, Justice Kumar remarked: "On granting of suspension, the judge says you do the plantation? What is this? We will set aside this order and send it back. Normally, we don't interfere, but look at the reasoning of the High Court, sir [reads the order]...and something is written in Hindi, two and a half paragraphs...Is this the condition for the grant of bail? What is this?"

In the order passed, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure and surprise as to how the bail order can withstand the test of law even for a second. It also questioned why no reasoning was assigned for the suspension of the sentence: "Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we were informed that the petitioners were convicted for 302 and 304 and sentenced to life imprisonment and one month rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 500 respectively for default. However, the impugned order did not disclose even an iota of reason as to the basis on which the bail has been granted. On the short note itself, the appeal deserves to be heard.

Be that as it may be, we are dismayed and surprised that under the impugned order, the High Court seems to have got swayed while imposing condition of directing the accused persons(convicted for 302) to carry out plantation of saplings on the premise that it would serve social cause and on the said condition, the bail came to be granted without considering merits, which could not stand the test of law even for a second. On that additional ground, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it stands aside and the matter stands remitted to the High Court to decide interlocutory applications referred to herein supra on merits and in accordance with law and without being influenced in any matter whatsoever by its previous order, which is impugned in the present appeal."

But the Court did not cancel the bail of the convicts. It remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh hearing and expedious disposal: "Having regard to the fact that by virtue of the impugned order, the respondents were granted bail, it is made clear that they shall not be taken into custody till the two interlocutory applications, filed for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail, are disposed of, which we hope and trust the High Court will dispose of expediously and prefer only within the period of six weeks."

When the Counsel challenging the bail order requested cancellation of the bail granted, Justice Kumar orally remarked: "Operation successful, patient died."

Case Details: SURAJPAL SINGH JADON v PRASHANT SIKARWAR AND ORS. SLP(Crl) No. 13465/2025