State's Failure To Challenge Bail Of Co-Convict Entitles Identically Situated Accused To Parity: Supreme Court

"In view of the fact that the State has not thought fit to question the legality and validity of the said order [releasing co-convict], we are left with no other option but to accept the plea of the present petitioner for suspension of the substantive order of sentence." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that the State’s failure to challenge the suspension of sentence granted to a similarly situated co-convict creates a ground for parity that the court must respect.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that when a co-convict has been at liberty for over a year without any challenge from the State, it becomes difficult to deny similar relief to another convict in the same case. The Court emphasized that while appellate courts are usually reluctant to suspend life sentences, the State's inaction regarding a co-convict's bail is a decisive factor.

The petitioner, Golu @ Vipin, was convicted for murder and other offences by the IV Upper Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, and sentenced to life imprisonment. While his criminal appeal was admitted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, his application for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the CrPC was rejected. He subsequently approached the Supreme Court seeking release on bail pending the final disposal of his appeal, citing the release of a co-convict on parity.

The primary question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his substantive life sentence on the grounds of parity. The Court was also called upon to determine the legal consequence of the State’s failure to challenge a previous order of the High Court that granted bail to an "identically situated" co-convict in the same trial.

Standard For Suspending Life Sentences

The Supreme Court began by reiterating the general judicial caution exercised when dealing with convicts sentenced to life imprisonment. The bench noted that it is conscious of the gravity of the offence of murder and the subsequent sentence imposed by the trial court.

Court Explains Judicial Restraint In Life Sentence Cases

"Ordinarily, when an accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, the appellate court should be loath in suspending the substantive order of sentence, unless a strong case is made out by the convict before the appellate court," the bench observed. This standard ensures that the findings of the trial court are not lightly brushed aside during the pendency of an appeal.

The Principle Of Parity With Co-Convicts

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that an "identically situated" co-convict, Anku alias Ankush, had already been granted suspension of sentence by the High Court via an order dated March 13, 2024. The High Court had allowed Anku's application after considering various discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including issues with the "last seen" theory and the reliability of Test Identification Parade (TIP) witnesses.

State's Inaction Regarding Co-Convict’s Bail

A crucial factor in the Supreme Court's decision was the State’s response—or lack thereof—to the co-convict's release. The bench enquired with the counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh as to why the government had not challenged the High Court order that released Anku on bail more than fifteen months prior.

State Cannot Selective Oppose Bail On Parity

The Court noted that the order in favor of the co-convict had been in operation for over one year and three months. During this period, the State did not think it fit to question the legality or validity of the said order. The bench found that this prolonged silence and inaction by the State significantly weakened its opposition to the current petitioner’s plea for similar relief.

Court Left With "No Other Option" But To Grant Bail

"In view of the aforesaid, we are left with no other option but to accept the plea of the present petitioner for suspension of the substantive order of sentence and release on bail, pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal before the High Court," the bench held. The Court found it legally inconsistent to keep the petitioner incarcerated when a similarly situated person remained free without challenge.

Verbatim Observation on State Inaction

"State has not thought fit to question the legality and validity of the said order. In view of the aforesaid, we are left with no other option but to accept the plea of the present petitioner."

The Supreme Court finally ordered that the petitioner’s life sentence shall remain suspended and he be released on bail. The release is subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court, including the requirement for the petitioner to secure his presence during the pendency of the appeal. With these directions, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.

The ruling reinforces the principle of parity in criminal jurisprudence, specifically regarding the suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) CrPC. It serves as a reminder to the State that if it accepts the release of one convict, it may be precluded from opposing the release of another identically situated convict in the same case. The judgment balances the severity of a life sentence with the constitutional necessity of procedural fairness and consistency.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026