Allahabad HC Stays Murder Conviction to Allow Accused to Contest 2027 Assembly Election [Read Order]

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has stayed the conviction and suspended the sentence of a man convicted of murder, granting him bail during the pendency of his appeal after noting that he is a political person who wishes to contest the 2027 Legislative Assembly election. 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., the Court observed that the apex court has stayed the convictions of a number of public representatives, since failure to do so may cost them the opportunity to contest elections.

A Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a bail application, with a prayer to stay conviction and sentence, filed in Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 2026 by Nandlal Rai alias Babloo Rai. The appellant had been convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC by judgment and order dated 15.04.2025 in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2017, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.

The prosecution case is that the father of the informant was returning home from the market at about 7:30 p.m. when some unknown accused murdered him by firing at him.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not named in the First Information Report and that his complicity was disclosed for the first time on 02.02.2017, about 17 days after the FIR was lodged, when the informant allegedly received information from a person named Sandeep Singh alias Pintu. A similar delayed disclosure was attributed to another witness, and the trial court, it was argued, wrongly relied on such delayed disclosure to convict. It was further submitted that one of the witnesses was not an eye-witness, that another witness projected as an eye-witness admitted in cross-examination that he had not seen the incident, and that the deceased was a politically active person and the appellant had been implicated on suspicion and conjecture. The recovery of the pistol was also challenged as fabricated and planted.

Counsel added that the case against the appellant rested substantially on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis consistent with his innocence. He also submitted that the appeal, being of the year 2026, was not likely to be heard in the near future.

It was further stated that the appellant is a political person who was an active worker of the Bharatiya Janata Party before his conviction and that he desires to contest the 2027 Legislative Assembly election, either as an independent candidate or, if possible, from the BJP.

The learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer, but, as recorded by the Court, could not dispute the contentions of the appellant’s counsel.

The Bench observed that the Supreme Court has stayed the convictions of a number of public representatives, holding that politicians bear a special duty towards their constituents and that failure to secure a stay of conviction may lead to loss of the opportunity to contest an election. It then reproduced paragraph 15 of Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P. (2024) 2 SCC 187, which says that in deciding whether to suspend a conviction under Section 389(1) of the CrPC, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are the primary factors, where failure to stay the conviction would lead to injustice or irreversible consequences, and that the notion of irreversible consequences turns on factors including the individual’s criminal antecedents, the gravity of the offence and its wider social impact.

The Court then held:

“Keeping in view the right to livelihood of a common man which is not less important than the right to contest election by a politician, conviction and sentence of appellant deserves to be stayed so that he may be able to survive for hearing the final verdict in his above noted appeal.”

Accordingly, the Court directed that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, and stayed his conviction and suspended his sentence during the pendency of the appeal. It imposed conditions that he shall not transfer, sell, alienate or create any charge on his immovable property without the Court’s leave, and shall inform any change of address within ten days, failing which the State may seek cancellation of bail. The appellant was also directed to deposit 50 per cent of the fine within one month of his release, while the remaining 50 per cent stays during the pendency of the appeal. If the fine is not deposited in time, it shall be recovered in accordance with law.

On the appeal, the Court directed the office to get the paper book prepared within six weeks, if not already prepared, and listed the appeal for hearing in due course. The order was passed on 05.10.2026.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. Devendra Deo Gupta and Mr. P.K. Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Anurag Singh Yadav, A.G.A., and Mr. Suraj Kumar Singh.

Case Title: Nandlal Rai alias Babloo Rai vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 2026

[Read Order]