Delhi High Court - Orders
Vikas Yadav vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 9 September, 2025
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (CRL) 2629/2025
VIKAS YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Mr.
Keshav Sethi, Dr. T.R. Naval, Ms.
Pooja Kumari, Mr. Tej Singh Varun,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with Mr.
Umar Hashmi, Mr. Mayank
Upadhyay, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Special Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Baffar, Mr. Ranjeeb
Kamal Bora, Advocates for R-4.
Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Pragya
Barsaiyan, Advocates for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
ORDER
% 09.09.2025
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1885/2025
1. This is an application for extension and grant of interim bail filed on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Mr. Jitender Sethi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the present application has been filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.09.2025, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 13053/2025. Copy of the order dated 08.09.2025 is not placed on record. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the order is not uploaded as yet.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2025 at 23:18:32
3. Mr. Dixit, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the UOI as also Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5, fairly state that the petitioner has been granted such liberty by the Hon'ble Supreme Court yesterday vide order dated 08.09.2025.
4. In view of the statements made by the learned counsels at bar, the application for extension of interim bail is taken up for consideration in terms of the orders of the Apex Court.
5. Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel, submits that petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (Crl.) No. 13053/2025, seeking extension of bail as petitioner was to get married on 05.09.2025. Vide order dated 01.09.2025, he was granted extension of interim bail by one week and in terms of the said order, petitioner is to surrender today.
6. He further submits that petitioner has recently got married on 05.09.2025 at Ghaziabad, U.P. The petitioner as well as his wife seek each other's companionship. He further submits that in order to comply with the directions of the High Court, imposing fine of Rs. 54 lakhs, petitioner is in the process of arranging funds through the sale of his immovable properties situated at Badayun and Bullandshahar and for the said purpose, he also requires Aadhar Card, which is an essential prerequisite for executing sale deeds and for completing the required legal formalities before revenue and registration authorities.
7. It is argued that in the absence of further interim relief, petitioner would be unable to raise the amount, and in default of payment, faces an additional incarceration of three years, which is over and above the already undergone 23 years of a fixed 25 year sentence.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2025 at 23:18:32
8. The application has been vehemently opposed by the learned Standing Counsel as also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. They submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not inclined to extend the interim bail and liberty was granted upon the continued insistence of the petitioner that his petition for statutory remission was pending consideration before this Court and such liberty was granted without commenting on the maintainability of the application before this Court. They submit that application for interim bail after conviction and dismissal of the appeal is not maintainable and the only right available to the petitioner after conviction is grant of parole/furlough.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/364/201/34 IPC by the trial court and this Court modified his sentence to a fixed term of 25 years without remission. The SLP preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.10.2016 and review sought also stands dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2017.
10. Before conviction during investigation/trial, the bail is considered under Sections 480, 482 & 483 BNSS (u/s 437-439 Cr. PC) with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. However, after conviction, the situation changes significantly compared to the stage before conviction. The presumption of innocence is no longer available. The person is considered guilty unless the Appellate/Revisional Court sets aside the conviction.
11. Once convicted, Section 430 BNSS (u/s. 389 Cr. PC) empowers the Appellate Court to suspend the sentence and grant bail during the pendency of the appeal. Such bail flows from the suspension of sentence and not from This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2025 at 23:18:32 the ordinary bail provisions available to the under-trials.
12. In the present case, petitioner already stands convicted, not only his appeal has been dismissed by the High Court, but SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, also stands dismissed.
13. Post conviction, petitioner is only entitled for the grant of parole/furlough. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has failed to show any provision under the BNSS/Cr. PC, which empowers this Court to grant bail/interim bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interim bail to the petitioner in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, but such power is not available with the High Court.
14. Thus, that being so, this Court has no power to grant interim bail or even extend the interim bail. The application for extension/grant of interim bail filed on behalf of the petitioner is therefore not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025 RM This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2025 at 23:18:32