Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Devraj Yadav vs State Of U. P on 6 April, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3870/2026]
DEVRAJ YADAV APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U. P & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 05.12.2025 by which the
application preferred by the respondent no.2 herein (convict)
seeking suspension of the substantive order of sentence of
life imprisonment passed by the Trial Court came to be allowed
and, thereby, the respondent no.2 (convict) was ordered to be
released on bail, pending the final disposal of his Criminal
Appeal No.8969/2025.
3. This appeal is at the instance of the de-facto
complainant (original first informant).
4. The respondent no.2 along with other co-accused was put
to trial in the court of Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in Sessions
Trial No.226/2019.
5. The appellant and the other co-accused were charged with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.04.08
the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the
17:12:16 IST
Reason:
Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Sections 27 and
30 of the Arms Act, respectively.
2
6. At the end of the trial, the Trial Court held the
respondent no.2 guilty of the alleged crime and sentenced him
to undergo life imprisonment with fine.
7. The respondent no.2, being dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court went before the High Court by preferring Criminal
Appeal No.8969/2025. The Criminal Appeal has been admitted by
the High Court.
8. In the said Criminal Appeal, the respondent no.2
preferred an application praying for suspension of the
substantive order of sentence and release on bail, pending the
final disposal of the appeal.
9. The High Court allowed the application and, accordingly,
suspended the substantive order of sentence of life
imprisonment.
10. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant
(original first informant) is here before us with the present
appeal.
11. We heard Ms. Ruchi Kohli, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Basant, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.
12. We take notice of the fact that what weighed with the
High Court is the fact that the convict has been undergoing
life imprisonment past seven years and he has no other
criminal history.
13. The High Court is also of the view that since the appeal
is of the year 2025, it may not be taken up in near future and
3
in such circumstances, the High Court thought fit to exercise
its discretion in favour of the convict.
14. The law as regards suspension of sentence of life
imprisonment by an Appellate Court is well settled. If the
sentence is for a fixed term, the Appellate Court may consider
the plea of the convict for suspension liberally unless there
are exceptional circumstances on record to decline even
suspension of a fixed sentence. However, when it comes to
considering the plea of a convict for suspension of sentence
of life imprisonment, the relevant consideration at the end of
the Appellate Court should be to look into something palpable,
something glaring on the basis of which the Appellate Court
may be in a position to reach to a prima-facie conclusion that
the chances of acquittal in the criminal appeal are quite
good.
15. We do not propose to say anything further in this matter
as we are inclined to remit the matter to the High Court for
fresh consideration of the plea of the respondent-convict
seeking suspension of the substantive order of sentence of
life imprisonment. The High Court shall hear both the sides
and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with
law.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order
passed by the High Court is set-aside and the matter is
remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the plea
of the convict seeking suspension of the substantive order of
sentence of life imprisonment.
4
17. The impugned order is dated 05.12.2025. The convict has
already been released on bail. He shall continue to remain on
bail till a fresh appropriate order is passed by the High
Court.
18. Let the matter be re-heard on its own merits within a
period of four weeks from today.
19. It is needless to clarify that the High Court shall re-
hear the matter, without being influenced in any manner by any
of the observations made by this Court. The convict shall
remain on bail on the very same terms and conditions on which
he was ordered to be released earlier by the impugned order.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………………….J
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
…………………………………………….J
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
06TH APRIL, 2026
5
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
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).3870/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-12-2025
in CRLA No. 8969/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
DEVRAJ YADAV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U. P & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 55382/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
Date : 06-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHANFor Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Shrishti Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AORFor Respondent(s) : Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR
Mr Rahul Jain, AOR
Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rahul Jain, Aor, Adv.
Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order which
is placed on the file.
6
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(HARPREET KAUR) (POOJA SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
