Supreme Court Upholds Lalu Prasad Yadav's Sentence Suspension In Deoghar Fodder Scam, Urges HC To Decide Appeal In 6 Months
Amisha Shrivastava
14 July 2026 11:03 AM IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the Jharkhand High Court's order suspending the sentence of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar fodder scam case, while requesting the High Court to decide his pending criminal appeal within 6 months.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging a July 12, 2019 order of the Jharkhand High Court suspending the sentence of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar treasury fodder scam case.
"Upon hearing the learned counsels, we are not inclined to interfere with the order particularly since seven years have elapsed since then. The appeals are of the year 2018 and therefore it will only be appropriate to request the High Court to expedite the hearing," the Bench observed.The bench observed that it would be preferable to decide the appeals within 6 months.
Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the High Court had granted suspension of sentence on an erroneous premise that Yadav had completed 50% of his sentence. He submitted that two earlier applications for suspension of sentence had been rejected and the third application was allowed on a factually incorrect basis.
Raju contended that Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply because Yadav was convicted in multiple fodder scam cases arising from separate trials. He argued that, unless directed otherwise by the court, sentences awarded in subsequent convictions commence only after the earlier sentence expires. According to him, the High Court incorrectly treated the sentences as concurrent while calculating the period of imprisonment undergone.
"The very yardstick applied is wrong," Raju submitted, adding that the sentence in the Deoghar case would begin only after completion of the earlier sentence.
Justice Sundresh asked about the status of the appeal pending before the High Court. Raju responded that the appeal had not been heard and alleged that the delay was attributable to the accused.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, opposed the State's plea. He argued that the State was advancing an incorrect proposition of law by invoking Section 427 at the stage of considering suspension of sentence. Sibal submitted that the question whether sentences would run concurrently or consecutively would arise at the final stage and that the High Court had exercised its discretion by applying a uniform yardstick of granting suspension where an appellant had completed half of the sentence.
Taking note of the fact that the criminal appeal has remained pending since 2018, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the suspension of sentence and instead requested the Jharkhand High Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
Background
Lalu Prasad had been convicted by a CBI court and sentenced to three-and-a-half years' imprisonment under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
This was Lalu Prasad's third application before the High Court seeking suspension of his sentence. His earlier applications had been rejected on February 23, 2018 and January 10, 2019 on the ground that he had not completed half of the sentence.
In the fresh application, Lalu Prasad contended that he had since completed more than half of his sentence. He also relied on previous orders in which the High Court had suspended the sentences of similarly placed co-convicts after they completed half of their respective terms.
The CBI opposed the plea, arguing that the Supreme Court had already declined to interfere with the earlier rejection of suspension of sentence after issuing notice and considering the materials on record. It submitted that the High Court could not entertain a fresh application on the same ground.
Rejecting the objection, the High Court held that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the earlier Special Leave Petition was by a non-speaking order and therefore did not attract the doctrine of merger. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. and M/s S.E. Graphites Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana, the High Court held that it was competent to consider a fresh application based on the subsequent completion of more than half of the sentence.
The High Court further noted that Lalu Prasad had completed more than half of the three-and-a-half-year sentence and that it had consistently granted suspension of sentence to similarly placed convicts after completion of half of their sentence. Accordingly, it suspended his sentence during the pendency of the appeal and granted him bail, subject to conditions.
Case: SLP(Crl) No. 1550/2020 THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Versus LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV and connected matters
