'Travesty Of Justice To Keep Convict In Jail For Years Pending Appeal' : Supreme Court Quotes 1977 Judgment, Suspends Murder Sentence

Observing that excessive delay in hearing an appeal against the conviction entitles a convict to the benefit of a suspension of a sentence, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Odisha High Court, which refused to suspend the life sentence of a murder convict, whose appeal against the conviction filed in 2016 is yet to be disposed of by the Odisha High Court.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma clarified that even though an individual is convicted for committing a heinous offence like murder, their entitlement to seek a suspension of sentence cannot be discarded, especially when there's a huge delay in hearing an appeal against the conviction, and no cogent grounds being brought to decide otherwise.

The appellant, Muna Bisoi, was convicted by a Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Murder), and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Appellant filed an appeal against his conviction in 2016 before the Orissa High Court. By the time the High Court considered his application for suspension of sentence on October 22, 2025, Appellant had been in custody for more than 11 years. The High Court declined to fully suspend the sentence but granted him interim bail for three months (expiring January 22, 2026) due to the prolonged delay.

Just before this interim period expired, Appellant approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's refusal to permanently suspend his sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the bench made the High Court's interim bail order absolute, “by suspending the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Court..."

In support, the Court referenced Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291, where the Court deprecated the practice of not releasing the convicts on bail, while their appeals against the conviction were kept pending for years.

“It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Can the Court ever compensate him for his incarceration which is found to be unjustified? Would it be just at all for the Court to tell a person: “We have admitted your appeal because we think you have a prima facie case, but unfortunately we have no time to hear your appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until we hear your appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you may be innocent?” What confidence would such administration of justice inspire in the mind of the public?...It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the practice which this Court has been following in the past must be reconsidered and so long as this Court is not in a position to hear the appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court should ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise, release the accused on bail in cases where special leave has been granted to the accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence.”, the Court had observed in Kashmira Singh.

Endorsing the views expressed by the Court in 1977 in Kashmira Singh, the bench observed :

"Bearing in mind that nothing is on record to indicate that delay in disposal of the appeal is attributable to the appellant and giving due consideration to what this Court in Kashmira Singh (supra) observed with regard to the necessity of reconsidering the practice of denying bail to murder convicts languishing in custody for five-six years, we are inclined to allow the appeal by suspending the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Court and to make the interim order absolute"

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed. The High Court was directed “to decide the appeal as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Cause Title: MUNA BISOI VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Haraprasad Sahu, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Ms. Vishakha Raghuram, Adv. Mr. Tarun Bhati, Adv. Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv.