Prayagraj, Oct 19 (IANS) The Allahabad High Court has stayed the conviction and sentence of Nandlal Rai alias Babloo Rai in a 2017 murder case, observing that the right to livelihood of a common man is no less important than a politician’s right to contest elections.
Rai, who claimed to have been an active worker of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) before his conviction, expressed his desire to contest the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections as an independent candidate or, if possible, on a BJP ticket.
A Bench of Justices Siddharth and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi passed the order on October 5 while hearing Rai’s criminal appeal against the judgment of the trial court, which had convicted and sentenced him in the murder case.
In its order, the High Court recorded that the appeal, filed in 2026, was not likely to be heard in the near future and held that the conviction and sentence deserved to be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings.
“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,” the Justice Siddharth-led Bench observed.
It also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Afzal Ansari vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), which laid down the parameters for suspending a conviction, including whether failure to grant such relief would lead to injustice or irreversible consequences.
The High Court observed that the apex court had, on several occasions, stayed the convictions of public representatives, taking into account the consequences of such convictions on their ability to contest elections.
Granting relief to Rai, the High Court directed that he be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. It also ordered that his sentence would remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
However, Justice Siddharth-led Bench imposed several other conditions, including directing Rai not to transfer, sell or otherwise alienate any immovable property in his name while on bail without the court’s permission.
He was also directed to deposit 50 per cent of the fine within one month of his release, while the remaining amount would remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
The case relates to the murder of the father of the informant, who was allegedly shot dead while returning home from the market at around 7.30 p.m.
Challenging his conviction, Rai’s counsel argued that he had not been named in the First Information Report (FIR) and that his alleged involvement was disclosed only around 17 days after the FIR was lodged.
The appellant’s counsel also questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, contending that one of them was not an eyewitness and that another witness had denied seeing the incident during cross-examination.
The alleged recovery of a pistol from co-accused Sheshnath Sharma was also challenged as fabricated and planted.
The counsel submitted that the prosecution case against Rai rested substantially on circumstantial evidence and that the circumstances relied upon by the trial court did not establish a complete and unbroken chain conclusively pointing to his guilt.
The prosecution had opposed the bail plea, though the Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the contentions advanced by the appellant’s counsel, as recorded in the order.
The High Court directed the office to ensure that the paper book was prepared within six weeks, if not already done, and ordered that the appeal be listed for hearing in due course.
–IANS
pds/uk
