Allahabad High Court stays conviction of former BJP leader Bablu Rai in murder case

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has stayed the conviction of former BJP leader Nandlal Rai, alias Bablu Rai, who was serving a life sentence in a murder case. The case concerns the killing of party worker Pramod Kumar Nigam and of a worker linked to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.

In its observations, the court said leaders have a special duty towards the people of their constituency. If a conviction is not stayed, the person concerned may lose the chance to contest an election. Keeping this in view, the court ordered a stay on Rai's conviction.

Rai had filed a petition in the High Court seeking bail and a stay on his conviction. In the petition, he wrote that he wished to contest the coming Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, either as a candidate of the ruling party or as an independent. Sheshnath Sharma, a co-accused in the same case, had also filed a petition. The court has granted him relief as well.

The murder took place in the Sigra area of Varanasi in January 2017. Pramod Kumar Nigam was shot. A Varanasi court had on 15 April last year convicted Nandlal Rai and Sheshnath Sharma and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Both had appealed against the verdict in the Allahabad High Court.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinay Kumar Dwivedi passed the order on the petitions on 5 October. While granting bail, the court also stayed the Varanasi court's judgment.

The court said a leader's right to contest an election cannot be considered more important than an ordinary person's right to earn a livelihood. But it said that a stay on conviction and sentence may be necessary so that the person can support themselves until the final decision on the appeal. The bench also cited some Supreme Court judgments. According to the court, the Supreme Court has stayed the convictions of several people's representatives.

The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court's order in the case of Samajwadi Party's Ghazipur MP Afzal Ansari. The Supreme Court had said that while staying anyone's conviction, the specific facts and circumstances of the case must be considered. It had also made clear that a stay can be considered where refusing it is likely to cause injustice, or where the consequences could not later be reversed.