Two decades on from a 2003 armed attack, the Supreme Court has set aside probation for convicts in the case and ordered both men to surrender within two weeks, holding that the Allahabad High Court extended the benefit despite an adverse probation report and without weighing the nature of the offence.
New Delhi: Reversing an Allahabad High Court order that gave two men convicted of a 2003 armed attack the benefit of probation, the Supreme Court has directed them to surrender within two weeks and asked the High Court to hear their appeals only after they are in custody [Umesh Chand v. State of U.P. and Others].
In a judgment dated October 7, 2026 (2026 INSC 1114), a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeals filed by the informant, the brother of the injured man. Advocate L.B. Rai appeared for the appellant, Namit Saxena for the State and Aishvary Vikram for the accused.
Where the High Court went wrong
Releasing the accused in the face of an adverse report on their character, without adequately weighing the seriousness of the offence, was the High Court’s error, the Bench found. It noted that the accused had remained on bail through the 22 years, observing that they were:
“and merrily indulging in criminal activities.”
The victim, the Court added, continued to suffer while the accused went unpunished:
“The accused have gone scot-free without suffering a single day of imprisonment”
Grievous hurt, but a lesser charge
The victim’s injuries, the Bench observed, appeared to amount to grievous hurt within Section 320 IPC, and the offence should have been charged under Section 307 IPC, which deals with attempt to murder. As the trial had proceeded under Section 308, the Court said little could be done at this stage.
Surrender, then appeal
The High Court’s order stands set aside, and the accused must surrender within two weeks. Should they fail to, the Additional Sessions Court at Bahraich, which conducted the trial, is to take immediate steps to apprehend them. The criminal appeals go back to the High Court at Lucknow, which has been asked to take them up only after the accused are in custody. Pending applications stand rejected.
From a dispute over shops to the Supreme Court
The case arises from a 2003 dispute over neighbouring shops, in which the victim was attacked with a cutting weapon and a firearm and suffered cut injuries and gunshot wounds. The trial court at Bahraich convicted the two accused under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000.
The High Court upheld the conviction but granted the accused the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It directed each to execute a personal bond of Rs 20,000 and to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for one year, relying on the roughly 22 years that had passed since the incident and the absence of earlier convictions. The informant then moved the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the State disclosed the accused’s criminal antecedents and a proposal for preventive action against them under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. The Probation Officer’s report listed several cases against both men, including matters still pending trial, and recorded the victim’s lasting injuries, among them a nearly severed right thumb, scarring, chronic pain and continuing treatment in Lucknow. The cases noted in that report are allegations that remain untested, and the accused are presumed innocent in them.
What Section 4 requires
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act lets a court release a convict on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing him, but the court must weigh the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, and Section 4(2) requires it to consider the report of the Probation Officer where one is available. In an earlier ruling covered by LawChakra, the Supreme Court held that probation substitutes the sentence but does not remove the stigma of conviction.
Why the judgment matters
Probation is a discretionary measure tied to the offender’s character and the gravity of the offence, the ruling reiterates, and the lapse of time or a clean conviction record is not enough on its own when a Probation Officer’s report points the other way.
The judgment also shows the Supreme Court willing to undo lenient outcomes at the informant’s instance where a victim has suffered lasting injury, and to insist that convicts be taken into custody before their appeals are heard.
Case Title: Umesh Chand v. State of U.P. and Others [Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 6984-6985 of 2026; 2026 INSC 1114]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2026
Appearances: L.B. Rai (appellant); Namit Saxena, AoR (State); Aishvary Vikram, AoR (accused)