Judgment Intelligence
OtherNazarul v. The State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 4752 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15191 of 2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 6 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 149, 364 and 368
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from three years to ten months and the fine increased to ₹10,000; the State must release the appellant on his completing ten months' custody and paying the fine (paras 8-10).
Key holdings
- The High Court took 38 years to decide an appeal filed in 1988 (para 5).
- The appellant was on bail throughout and went to jail only after the appeal was dismissed (para 6).
- The appellant's age and ill-health weighed in reducing the sentence (para 7).
- Imprisonment was cut from three years to ten months and the fine raised from ₹1,000 to ₹10,000 (para 8).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
On 12.08.1983 a complainant reported at Police Station Didauli, Moradabad, that five or six unknown men had kidnapped his ten-year-old son from his thatched shed the previous night; the boy was recovered the same day from the custody of one of the co-accused (para 3). The Trial Court framed charges under Section 147 and Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC and, on 06.04.1988, convicted the appellant, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a ₹1,000 fine under Section 364/149 and two years under Section 147, concurrently (para 3). His appeal, filed in 1988, was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on 29.05.2026 (paras 2-3).
Court's Findings
The Court noted that the incident occurred in 1983, the appeal was filed in 1988, and the High Court disposed of it only on 29.05.2026, thirty-eight years later (para 5). Throughout those decades the appellant had been on bail; he went to jail only after the High Court decided the appeal (para 6). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the rival contentions, the Court found that relief in part was made out, particularly taking note of the appellant's age and ill-health (para 7). Without disturbing the conviction, it reduced the term of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court from three years, including the period already undergone, to ten months, and increased the fine from ₹1,000 to ₹10,000 (para 8). The State must work out how long he has been in custody and release him once he has served ten months and paid the fine (para 9).
Legal Principle
Where a criminal appeal has remained pending for decades while the convict was on bail, and he is aged and ill when it is finally dismissed, the Supreme Court may, without disturbing the conviction, reduce the term of imprisonment and enhance the fine instead (paras 5-8).
