This is an interim order suspending sentence during the pendency of the special leave petition. It does not acquit the petitioner, does not set aside the conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and the POCSO Act provisions, and does not decide the merits of the challenge to the Kerala High Court's judgment, which remains pending.
- Case
- Manu @ Manoj K v. State of Kerala
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Satish Chandra Sharma; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Case numbers
- SLP (Crl) Diary No. 60237 of 2026
- Outcome
- Interim order in SLP (Crl) Diary No. 60237 of 2026: delay of 922 days condoned, notice issued, suspension of sentence allowed, petitioner to be released on bail during the pendency of the petition on trial-court terms. The special leave petition remains pending.
The order: sentence suspended, bail during the appeal
On 27 October 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh suspended the sentence of Manu @ Manoj K and directed that he be released on bail during the pendency of his special leave petition.
The petition, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 60237 of 2026, arises out of the Kerala High Court's judgment dated 20 December 2023 in CRLA No. 1209 of 2018. The Court issued notice, accepted the State's appearance through counsel, and directed the State to file its counter affidavit within four weeks.
The suspension is an interim measure only. It pauses the sentence while the special leave petition is heard; it does not set aside the conviction, which stands unless and until the petition succeeds.
First, a 922-day delay condoned
Before reaching the suspension prayer, the Court dealt with delay. There was a delay of 922 days in filing the special leave petition. The Court condoned it, giving two reasons recorded in the order: this is a legal-aid matter, and the petitioner lacked the means to approach the Court and was in jail, so he could not file the petition in time.
Condonation of delay is a threshold step, not a decision on the merits. It means only that the petition will be heard despite being filed late. The State's opportunity to contest the petition itself is preserved through the counter affidavit directed to be filed within four weeks.
The order records that counsel for the State of Kerala accepted notice, so formal service on the State stood dispensed with. The petition will be listed in due course.
The conviction and the sentence
The order records that the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and was awarded 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000.
The petitioner had undergone 5 years and 7 months of the sentence when the matter came before the Court. The order does not record any further facts of the underlying case, and this article does not add any.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, keeping in view the period of incarceration and the statement of witnesses, the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence. The Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
Why suspension was allowed
After hearing counsel for both sides and going through the record, the Court recorded its opinion that the prayer for suspension deserved to be allowed, and allowed it accordingly. The order does not elaborate further on its reasoning beyond the hearing, the record, and the context of the sentence already undergone.
Readers should be careful about what this reasoning does and does not show. The Court did not hold that the conviction was wrong, did not re-appreciate the evidence, and did not record any finding about the witnesses beyond noting the petitioner's submission. Suspension at this stage is a provisional assessment that the petitioner need not remain in custody while the challenge to his conviction is decided.
The balance the Court struck is visible in the structure of the order: notice and a counter affidavit keep the State's case alive, while release on bail protects the petitioner against serving the whole sentence before his appeal is heard.
Operative directions and their limits
The operative directions are threefold. First, the delay of 922 days stands condoned. Second, the prayer for suspension of sentence is allowed, and the petitioner shall be released on bail during the pendency of the special leave petition, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court. Third, the special leave petition will be listed in due course, with the State's counter affidavit to be filed within four weeks.
The bail is therefore tied to the pendency of the petition. It is not a final release, and its terms will be fixed by the trial court. The conviction, the 10-year sentence, and the fine remain in place unless the petition succeeds.
What happens next is procedural: the State files its counter affidavit, the petition is listed, and the Court decides whether the conviction and sentence should stand. Until then, the petitioner remains on bail under the trial court's conditions.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: suspension of sentence pending appeal
Suspension of sentence pending appeal is one of the most commonly misunderstood interim orders. It is not an acquittal, not a reduction of sentence, and not a finding that the trial went wrong. It is a decision that the convicted person need not stay in prison while the appellate court examines whether the conviction should stand.
Three features of this order are worth studying. First, the delay question comes before the merits: a petition filed 922 days late cannot be heard at all unless delay is condoned, and here legal aid and incarceration were accepted as the explanation. Second, the suspension prayer is decided on the record and the submissions, without a detailed merits discussion, which is typical of interim orders. Third, the order preserves both sides: the State gets its counter affidavit and a future listing, and the petitioner gets liberty in the meantime.
When you read such orders, always separate the three layers: the threshold (delay, notice), the interim relief (suspension and bail on trial-court terms), and the undecided merits (the conviction itself). Conflating them is the commonest error in reporting these cases.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- On what grounds did the Court condone the 922-day delay in filing the petition?
- What is the difference between suspension of sentence and acquittal in this order?
- What are the next procedural steps after this interim order?
