Can a convict’s right to earn a living weigh as much as a politician’s wish to stand for election? The Allahabad High Court stays murder conviction and life sentence of a Varanasi man while his appeal is pending, and grants him bail.
Prayagraj: A man convicted of murder by a Varanasi trial court, who says he wants to contest the 2027 Assembly elections, has had his conviction and life sentence stayed by the Allahabad High Court. He has also been released on bail while his criminal appeal is pending. According to the order, the appeal is yet to be heard and the stay is meant to let him “survive for hearing the final verdict”. The trial court found the allegations proved, but they remain under challenge in appeal, and the High Court has expressed no final view on the merits [Nandlal Rai @ Babloo Rai v. State of U.P.].
On 5 October 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi passed the order on a bail application in Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 2026. Advocates Devendra Deo Gupta and P.K. Singh appeared for the appellant. The Additional Government Advocate, for the State, opposed the plea but did not dispute the appellant’s contentions.
What the Bench decided, and why
Reliance was placed by the Bench on the Supreme Court’s decision in Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P. (2024) 2 SCC 187, where convictions of public representatives were stayed because failure to obtain a stay could have irreversible consequences for contesting elections. The Bench then turned to the position of an ordinary convict who is not a legislator, and weighed the two interests against each other:
Keeping in view the right to livelihood of a common man
the Court found that the right of a common man to livelihood is not less important than the right of a politician to contest an election. It concluded:
the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be stayed during the pendency of this appeal.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Suspends Actor Raj Babbar’s 1996 Election Conviction Ahead of General Elections
Terms of the stay
Bail is on a personal bond and two sureties, and the conviction and sentence stay suspended during the appeal. Without the Court’s leave, the appellant may not transfer, sell or create any charge on his immovable property, and any change of address must be reported within ten days, failing which the State may seek cancellation of bail.
Half of the fine, 50 per cent, is to be deposited within one month of release; the other 50 per cent is stayed pending the appeal, and non-payment would lead to recovery in accordance with law. The paper book is to be prepared by the office within six weeks, and the appeal is to be listed for hearing in due course.
The appeal, and the contentions made in it
Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code were the basis of the conviction, recorded by a Varanasi court in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2017 in a case registered at Police Station Sigra. The judgment is dated 15 April 2025 and awards life imprisonment. As recorded in the order, the prosecution case is that the informant’s father was shot while returning home from the market. The appeal, filed in 2026, was listed along with a bail application seeking suspension of sentence and a stay of conviction.
His counsel submitted that he was not named in the FIR and was implicated about 17 days later on the basis of a disclosure. The disclosure witnesses were said to be doubtful, and one prosecution witness, P.W.-6, admitted in cross-examination that he had not seen the incident. The recovery of a pistol from a co-accused was called planted by counsel, who also argued that the case rests mainly on circumstantial evidence without a complete chain. These are the appellant’s contentions in appeal and the Court has not accepted them as findings.
Counsel further said that the appellant is a political person who was an active BJP worker before his conviction and wants to contest the 2027 Assembly election, as an independent candidate or, if possible, on a party ticket. Whether he can or will contest is not decided by the order.
Why a stay, and not bail alone
Beyond jail time, the relief carries weight for elections. A person convicted and sentenced to two years or more is disqualified from contesting under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for the sentence and for six years after release. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court held that a convicted legislator stands disqualified from the date of conviction. Bail alone does not lift the bar; only a court’s stay of the conviction does. That is why stay applications by politicians come before the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Why the order matters
Here a High Court takes the reasoning behind stays granted to elected representatives and applies it to a person who holds no public office, resting it on the right to livelihood. The appellant’s pleas on the delayed disclosure of his name, the circumstantial chain and the long wait for an appeal hearing were acted on by the Bench, and the State did not dispute them. The allegations remain untested in appeal, no view on guilt has been expressed by the Court, and the stay does not decide whether the appellant can contest any election.
Case Title: Nandlal Rai @ Babloo Rai v. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 2026 (Criminal Misc. Bail Application)]
Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: 5 October 2026
Appearances: Advocates Devendra Deo Gupta and P.K. Singh for the appellant; Additional Government Advocate for the State