The suspension of a life imprisonment sentence pending appeal cannot be granted solely on the ground of high judicial pendency; it requires an objective assessment of the gravity of the offence, the nature of the accusation, and a prima facie finding that the conviction is unsustainable on the face of the record.

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned Criminal Appeals are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. These appeals arise from the Orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 14-1-2026 in Criminal Appeal No.9392/2022 and Criminal Appeal No.264/2023 respectively, by which the High Court suspended the substantive orders of sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court against the accused persons – herein in Sessions Trial No.7831/2007, arising out of Case Crime No.6/2007 registered with Kakrauli Police Station, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the, “IPC”).

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2-1-2007, the first informant, i.e., the appellant before us and his son Jan Mohammad had gone to offer namaz in a masjid.

5. At about 2.00 p.m., when they were about to leave for their home from the masjid, the accused persons are alleged to have fired shots on Jan Mohammed.

6. Jan Mohammed fell down at the very spot of the incident on suffering the gun shot injuries. The accused persons are alleged to have thereafter run away from the place of the incident.

7. The aforesaid is the sum and substance of the case of the prosecution.

8. The accused persons were arrested and were put to trial. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses to the incident.

9. The Trial Court ultimately held all the accused persons guilty of the alleged crime of murder.

10. The accused persons, being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, went before the High Court with two appeals, referred to above.

11. In the two appeals, referred to above, they preferred appropriate applications praying that pending the final disposal of their respective Criminal Appeals, they be released on bail by suspending the substantive orders of sentence of life imprisonment passed by the Trial Court.

12. The High Court allowed the applications preferred by the convicts seeking suspension of sentence of life imprisonment saying that as more than 200 Criminal Appeals are being listed before the Court every day, it was just not possible for the High Court to decide all these appeals on merits.

13. The High Court further observed that the appeals would not be taken up for hearing in near future and saying so, proceeded to suspend the substantive orders of sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the accused persons before us.

14. We quote the observations made by the High Court as contained in Para 8 of the impugned order:-

“8. After hearing the rival submissions and considering the fact that there are more than two hundreds criminal appeals being listed before this court per day and it is not humanly possible to decide all on merit. There is remote possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future hence prayer for grant of bail to the appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4 are allowed.”

15. In such circumstances, referred to above, the original first informant, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court, is here before us with the present appeals.

16. We heard Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant (original first informant), Mr. Arvind Singh Sangwan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 – Mudassir, Son of Musharraf in the connected Appeal, Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 – Bhoora @ Mudassir,