Disposed¶11

Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2026CRLRD/966/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision – 686 days' delay in filing – revisionist absent before appellate court – bailable warrant issued to comply with order dated 24.09.2019 – non-surrender till date – direction to surrender within 15 days – revision listed fresh 28.01.2026 – conviction affirmed in appeal (order dated 15.04.2022, Varanasi) – Allahabad High Court.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: revisionist to surrender before the learned Trial Court within 15 days in pursuance of the bailable warrant; revision to be listed fresh on 28.01.2026. No adjudication on the merits or on condonation of the 686-day delay. ¶11

Sushil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision, filed with a delay of 686 days while the revisionist has not surrendered pursuant to the bailable warrant issued against him, should be entertained (no express framing by the Court; inferred from the facts the Court recorded and its interim course).

¶10

Court's answer

Observation underlying the interim course: the revisionist's failure to surrender despite the bailable warrant shows that he is concealing himself from the warrant issued by the learned Trial Court.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The revisionist Sushil Kumar Yadav is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within 15 days, in pursuance of the bailable warrant issued against him (direction spans the page break between paragraphs 11 and 14 of the source).

¶11

Key takeaways

The revision is to be put up fresh on 28.01.2026; consideration of the merits (including the 686-day delay) is deferred pending surrender.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chawan Prakash, J.), Criminal Revision Defective No. 966 of 2024, directed against the order dated 15.04.2022 of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th Financial Commission), Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2019 (Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and another), whereby the appeal was dismissed affirming the Trial Court's order of conviction. The revision was filed with a delay of 686 days. The Court recorded that the revisionist was absent when the appellate order was passed, that the Appellate Court had directed the Trial Court to issue a bailable warrant against him to comply with its order dated 24.09.2019, and that — as his counsel stated — he had not surrendered till date, indicating concealment from the warrant. The Court directed the revisionist to surrender before the learned Trial Court within 15 days in pursuance of the bailable warrant and listed the revision fresh on 28.01.2026; no ruling was made on the merits or the delay.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 966 of 2024

¶3

Sushil Kumar Yadav

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 84

¶7

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. are present. No one is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶9

This revision has been filed against the order dated 15.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (14th Financial Commission), Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2019, Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and another, by which the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal affirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶10

A perusal of order dated 15.04.2022, passed by the Appellate Court, shows that the revisionist was not present before the Court on the date of passing of the said order and a direction was given to the learned Trial Court to issue a bailable warrant against the revisionist to comply with the order dated 24.09.2019. This revision has been filed with the delay of 686 days. On being asked, learned Counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist has not surrendered before the Trial Court till date. This act of the revisionist shows that he is concealing himself from the warrant issued by the learned Trial Court.

¶11