Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Rajendra Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2026
(@SLP(CRL.) No. 1266/2026)
RAJENDRA YADAV & ANOTHER APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This Criminal Appeal challenges the order dated
22.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.695/2023, whereby the
appellants’ application for suspension of sentence bearing
I.A. No. 8275/2025, was dismissed.
The appellants, namely, Rajendra Yadav and Sakindar
Yadav faced trial in S.T. No.217/2014 in connection with a
crime registered pursuant to P.S. Case No. 12/1997 dated
17.02.1997 lodged with Police Station-Nagar Untari in
respect of the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 149, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [in
short “IPC”] and under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act,
1959.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.13
17:31:36 IST
The Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 217/2014,
Reason:
convicted the appellants herein for the offences under
1
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under
Section 27 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 03.04.2023
and awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life,
along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, and a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years,
along with fine of Rs.1000/-, for the offence under
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The appellants, being aggrieved by the order of
conviction passed by the Trial Court filed Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 695/2023 before the High Court and the same is
pending before the High Court. During the pendency of the
said Criminal Appeal, the appellants and other co-accused
filed an application before the High Court seeking
suspension of sentence. The High Court, by the impugned
order dated 22.07.2025, dismissed the application filed by
the appellants for suspension of sentence. Hence, the
present Criminal Appeal.
This Court vide its order dated 13.01.2026, issued
notice in the instant matter.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondent-State and perused the material
on record.
2
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that out
of seven convicts, four have been granted bail and one of
whom was about 90 years of age. The appellants herein are
also aged 74 years and 50 years respectively. These
appellants could be considered at par with at least three
others convicts who have been granted bail; in fact, other
convict Harihar Koiri, was also granted bail having regard
to the fact that there was no specific role attributed to
him and he was aged 90 years. Therefore, on the principle
of parity, these appellants also may be granted the relief
of bail.
Learned counsel also submitted that the incident is
of the year 16.02.1997, the appellants had the benefit of
the bail during the trial, the judgment of conviction and
sentence of the Sessions Court is dated
03.04.2023/10.04.2023, the appeal before the High Court is
also of the year 2023; that the said appeal would
inevitably take time for being heard and disposed of; the
appellants have a good case on merits. In the
circumstances, the impugned order may be set aside and the
relief of bail may be granted to the appellants herein
subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed
particularly on the principle of parity.
3
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State
with reference to her counter affidavit contended that the
case of these appellants cannot be considered at par with
the other appellants who have been granted bail; that
these appellants have been in jail for about three years
and in the circumstances and having regard to the fact
that the appellants have been convicted under Sections
302/149 of the IPC and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, no
relief could be granted to the appellants herein at this
stage. She, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in
this appeal and hence, the appeal may be dismissed.
Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case
for suspension of sentence is made out.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:
“The appellants shall be produced before the
concerned Trial Court as early as possible, and the
Trial Court shall release them on bail, subject to
such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose
to ensure their presence in the proceedings.”
The appellants shall appear before the High Court as
and when directed to do so.
4
It is directed that the appellants shall extendcomplete cooperation in the hearing of the appeal before
the High Court. The appellants shall not misuse their
liberty in any manner.
Any infraction of the conditions may entail in
cancellation of the suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellants herein.
With these observations, the Criminal Appeal is
allowed.
………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)………………………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)NEW DELHI;
APRIL 13, 2026
5
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1266/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-07-2025
in IA No. 8275/2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi]RAJENDRA YADAV & ANOTHER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondent(s)
(IA No. 7384/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 13-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajan Raj, Adv.
Sayesha Gambhir, Adv.
Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)
6