Allowed¶21

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025CRLA/1034/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2025, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.; suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal; Section 389 Cr.P.C.; Section 430 B.N.S.S.; Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; conviction by Special Judge (PC Act) Court No. 4, Lucknow; dismissal from service after conviction; bail order dated 03.09.2025 without suspension of sentence; C.M. Application No. IA/07 of 2025 allowed; sentence suspended; Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.; decided December 1, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence — the sentence of four years' imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine awarded to appellant Sanjeev Kumar Yadav shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal. ¶21

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suspension of sentence — the sentence of four years' imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine awarded to appellant Sanjeev Kumar Yadav shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2025 (four years' imprisonment with fine) should be suspended during pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2025, given that the earlier bail order dated 03.09.2025 did not direct suspension of sentence.

¶12

Court's answer

Considering the rival submissions and the quantum of punishment — four years' imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- as fine — the Judge found it a fit case for suspension of sentence, since the appellant had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The C.M. Application No. IA/07 of 2025 for suspension of sentence is allowed; consequently, the sentence of four years' imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine awarded to the appellant Sanjeev Kumar Yadav for the charge under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE — Appellant convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Court No. 4 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Lucknow (judgment and order dated 28.03.2025 in Criminal Case no. 346 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 024 of 2015, P.S. Aminabad, District Lucknow) under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to four years' imprisonment with Rs. 5,000/- fine and default clause. Bail had been granted on 03.09.2025 (application under Section 389 Cr.P.C./430 B.N.S.S.) without a direction for suspension of sentence, whereupon the competent officer dismissed the appellant from service. Considering the quantum of punishment and the existing bail, the Court found the C.M. Application No. IA/07 of 2025 fit to be allowed and ordered that the sentence shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) (December 1, 2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1034 of 2025

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Nadeem Murtaza, Chandresh Mani	Akanksha Shukla,	Bajpayee, Dinesh
	Chandra, Harsh	Vardhan	Kediya,
	Rakesh Kumar Nay	ak
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 27

¶10

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Order on C.M. Application No.IA/ 07 of 2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on application for suspension of sentence whereby a prayer has been made to suspend the sentence which has been awarded against the appellant in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2025.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Court has released the appellant on bail vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed on bail application filed by the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C./430 B.N.S.S.

¶14

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Jude Court no.4 (Prevention of Corruption Act) Lucknow in Criminal Case no.346 of 2015 , arising out of Case Crime No. 024 of 2015 lodged at Police Station Aminabad District Lucknow whereby the appellant/applicant has been convicted for the charges under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to four years imprisonment with fine stipulation and default clause. However, in bail order a direction for suspension of sentence could not be passed.

¶15

He next submitted that in view of non-suspension of sentence instead of

¶16

CRLA No. 1034 of 2025

¶17

¶18

bail order passed by this Court in criminal appeal, the competent officer has dismissed the appellant from service on account of his conviction awarded in the impugned judgment and order.

¶19

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted there are serious charges of corruption against the appellant.

¶20

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the quantum of punishment which is four years imprisonment and Rs.5000/- as fine, I find it is a fit case of suspension of sentence as the appellant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025.

¶21

The application for suspension of sentence is allowed . Consequently, the sentence of 4 years imprisonment and Rs.5000/- as fine awarded to the appellant- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav for charge under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 shall remain suspended during pendency of appeal.

¶22

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶23

December 1, 2025 dk/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhanu Prakash Shukla and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment Lko. and 4 Others

Anand Kumar Divedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Vs Stat of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Tech. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmraj Yadav (Constable Driver , Pno - 040600390) and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. It Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 10 Others