Format of Special Leave Petition under Criminal Law

Filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India remains the ultimate residual remedy for an aggrieved party in a criminal matter. When a High Court summarily dismisses an application for suspension of a sentence during a pending criminal appeal, a Criminal SLP can be moved before the Apex Court.

With the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the old CrPC, criminal pleadings must adapt to the new statutory numbers. Below is the updated model format, incorporating procedural revisions and essential grounds supported by recent Supreme Court landmarks.

⚖️ Strategic Criminal Case Laws on Suspension of Sentence

When drafting the grounds of your SLP, integrating recent judicial precedents is critical. The Supreme Court has repeatedly highlighted that a long pendency of appeals combined with a denial of bail violates Article 21 of the Constitution:

1. The Doctrine of Unlikelihood of Early Hearing: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that when a High Court is burdened with massive backlogs (hearing decades-old appeals), keeping a convict incarcerated without an appellate hearing is a fundamental failure of the justice delivery system. The court noted that “it is a travesty of justice to keep a convict in jail for years pending appeal”, echoing the classic 1977 stance in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab.
2. Parity and Proportionality: If co-accused with identical roles have had their sentences suspended, refusing the same relief to the petitioner without distinct, recorded aggravating circumstances amounts to an arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion.
3. Application of BNSS: For all criminal actions, trials, and consequential appeals arising out of FIRs registered after 1 July 2024, the provisions of Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 389 of the CrPC) govern the suspension of sentences pending appeal.

📂 Updated 2026 Court Template / Format for Special Leave Petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ______ OF 2026

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

POSITION OF PARTIES:
In the High Court:                           In this Court:

BETWEEN:
___________, 
Son of ________, 
Resident of ________, 
P.S.: ________, District ________
State of ________                            ...PETITIONER

AND

State of ________                            ...RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED ________ PASSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF _______ IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. ____ OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ____ OF _____

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA 
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE 
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The present Special Leave Petition is being filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the impugned final judgment and order dated ________ passed by the Hon’ble High Court of ____ in Criminal Misc. Application No. ____ of 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. ___ of ____, whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said Application filed by the Petitioner herein seeking the suspension of sentence. The application was dismissed summarily on the erroneous premise that there was no ground to suspend the sentence of the Petitioner, despite a glaring delay in the hearing of the main appeal. A true copy of the said impugned order dated _________ is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P-1.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The present Special Leave Petition raises the following substantial questions of law of great public importance for the consideration of this Hon’ble Court:
   (i) Whether the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing an application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 (Section 389 CrPC) when the underlying criminal appeal is highly unlikely to be heard in the near future?
   (ii) Whether the denial of suspension of sentence to the Petitioner violates the right to speedy justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, given that the co-accused with identical or greater roles have already been granted bail on parity?
   (iii) Whether the mechanical rejection of bail pending appeal without assessing the stark contradictions in partisan eyewitness testimonies constitutes a miscarriage of justice?

3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3.1 That the prosecution alleged an incident on ______ wherein a verbal altercation ensued between the Petitioner and the informant party, leading to an alleged assault with weapons.
3.2 That on the basis of a verbal complaint, the local police registered F.I.R. No. ____ of ____, under relevant provisions of the penal law. A true copy of the said F.I.R. is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P-2.
3.3 That after the conclusion of the investigation, a Charge Sheet was filed, and the Ld. Trial Court proceeded to frame charges. 
3.4 That during the trial, the statements of the accused including the Petitioner were recorded under Section 351 of the BNSS, 2023 (or Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973, depending on the date of the primary proceedings). 
3.5 That the Ld. Trial Court vide its judgment dated ___________ convicted the Petitioner. A true copy of the judgment and order is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-3.
3.6 That the Petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. Along with the appeal, an application seeking the suspension of sentence was moved. 
3.7 That the Hon’ble High Court vide the impugned order has rejected the suspension application of the Petitioner while extending the benefit of suspension to other co-accused on the same set of facts.

4. GROUNDS:
A. Because the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble High Court is patently illegal, arbitrary, and directly conflicts with the settled principles of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
B. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the main Criminal Appeal is from an old batch and is highly unlikely to reach a final hearing in the near future due to structural backlogs, making indefinite incarceration a pre-trial punishment.
C. Because the Hon’ble High Court flagrantly ignored the principle of parity; having suspended the sentences of co-accused individuals attributed with identical roles, the selective incarceration of the Petitioner is discriminatory.
D. Because the conviction relies entirely on the uncorroborated, contradictory testimony of a highly interested, partisan witness whose presence at the crime spot was completely disproved by defense witnesses.
E. Because the medical evidence directly contradicts the oral testimony. The medical examiner explicitly stated that the injuries were not on vital organs and that syncope resulted due to a delay in treatment rather than any intentional lethal blow by the Petitioner, thereby failing to satisfy the ingredients of a grave offense.

5. PRAYER:
In the premises, the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to:
   (a) grant special leave to the Petitioner to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the final impugned order dated ____________ passed by the Hon’ble High Court of __________ in Criminal Appeal No. ____ of ____;
   (b) pass an ad-interim ex-parte order suspending the execution of the sentence passed against the Petitioner and release the Petitioner on bail during the pendency of this petition; and
   (c) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn by: __________                  Settled by: _____________, Advocate
Filed by: __________                  (ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

DRAWN ON: _________                  FILED ON: _________

💡 Key Execution Takeaways for 2026

Affidavit of Urgency: Always supplement a sentence-suspension SLP with an explicit statement showing the exact period of custody already undergone by the convict to invoke the Supreme Court’s equity jurisdiction.

Double-Check Timelines: If the FIR in your case was registered on or after 1 July 2024, substitute Section 389 (Suspension of sentence) with Section 430 of the BNSS and Section 313 (Statement of Accused) with Section 351 of the BNSS.

For more help, contact us.