Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan vs State Of (NCT Of Delhi)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1192

B. V. NAGARATHNA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan – Appellant
Versus
State Of (NCT Of Delhi) – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajendra M Daga, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Manan Daga, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Siddharth Mridul, SR. Adv. Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, ADv. Mr. Madhurima Mridul, ADv. Mr. Mimatullah, Adv. Mr. Deepak Chhikara, Adv. Mr. Sohil Batra, ADv. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Shreya Rastogi, ADv. Mr. Vishwajeet Bhati, Adv. Mr. Kothari Bhalla, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Karan Dhalla, Adv. Ms. Mamta Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vivek Rajan D.b, Adv. Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pragya Barsaijan, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shgubham Rajhans, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Verma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singal, Adv. Mr. Abhishak Kr. Pandey, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantray, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Apoorva Singhal , AOR

Table of Content
1. question on entitlement of release after fixed term of life imprisonment. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented regarding the denial of furlough and principles behind sentencing. (Para 6 , 7)
3. discussion on the nature of life imprisonment and applications of sentencing terms. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. clarification that upon completing twenty years, release is mandatory without further implication. (Para 13 , 14)
5. final decisions on release based on completion of fixed-term imprisonment. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The salient question that arises in this appeal is, whether, an accused/convict who has completed his “life imprisonment for a fixed term” such as twenty years of actual sentence without ission, as in the instant case, is entitled to be released from prison on completion of such a sentence. In other words, on completion of the fixed term of sentence as aforesaid, should the accused/convict seek remission of his sentence of “life imprisonment” by making an application to the competent authority for seeking “reduction of his sentence”.

Background Facts:

3. By the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, the learned single Judge of th