Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh administers the oath of office to Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh. He was transferred to Patna High Court on October 30, 2025. The President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India had issued an order of transfer on October 14, 2025 from Allahabad High Court to Patna High Court. Some 11 judges from Allahabad High Court accompanied him to witness his oath taking ceremony. The notification dated October 14, 2025 in this regard was issued by Jagannath Srinivasaan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The notification reads:''In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, Judge, Allahabad High Court, to be a Judge of Patna High Court and to direct him to assume charge of his office in the Patna High Court.' Justice
Singh enrolled as an Advocate on May 9, 1993 in Bar Council, U.P. and
practiced in the Allahabad High Court. He was appointed as Additional
Judge on November 22,2018 in the Allahabad High Court. He took oath as
Permanent Judge on November 20, 2020. He will retire on January 20, 2031.
Justice Singh reached Patna after the Full Court Farewell Reference at Allahabad High Court on October 17, 2025.
In Dhanajay Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), Justice Singh delivered a 35-page long order dated April 27, 2024, upon hearing the prayer made to stay the operation and effect of the judgment of conviction dated March 5, 2024 and order of sentence dated March 6, 2024 of the appellants and to enlarge them on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal before the Allahabad High Court, he concluded:''the prayer for stay of operation and effect of judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2024 of appellant No.1 is refused and is hereby rejected. 42. Since prayer for stay of impugned judgment of conviction with regard to appellant No.2 (who is not a political person or government servant) has not been pressed during argument, therefore, his case has not been dealt with in this regard.''
Coincidentally, his transfer order has been issued in the aftermath of his order against Dhananjay Singh. This order's mentioning in the Full Court Farewell Reference at Allahabad High Court underlines its significance. Is it similar to the transfer of Justice (Dr.) S. Muralidhar from Delhi High Court?
This order was passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application (For Suspension of Sentence) under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. The appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. was preferred by the appellants-Dhananjay Singh and Santosh Vikram Singh against the judgment of conviction dated March 5, 2024 and order of sentence dated March 6, 2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Special Judge, MP/MLA, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2020 (State Vs. Dhananjay Singh and another) which arose out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2020, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under :-
(a) Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 364 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, four months’ additional imprisonment.
(b) Five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 386 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, three months' additional imprisonment.
(c) One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, one month's additional imprisonment.
(d) Two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, forty five days’ additional imprisonment.
(e) Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, four months’ additional imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Justice Singh noted that at present ten cases are still pending against Dhananjay Singh, the appellant No. 1. He drew on Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Sareen vs. CBI, (2001) 6 SCC 584,
wherein the Court held that “though the power to suspend an order of
conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to Section
389 (1) of the code, its exercise should be limited to very exception
Cases. It was further held that merely because the convicted person
files an appeal to challenge his conviction, the court should not
suspend the operation of the conviction and the court has a duty to look
at all aspect including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in
abeyance.”
Justice referred to
Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Atar Singh, (2003) 12 SCC
434, wherein the accused was convicted under Section 409 IPC and
Section 13 of Prevention of corruption Act. He filed an appeal before
the High Court, which has suspended the conviction solely on the ground
that non-suspension of conviction may entail removal of the delinquent
government servant from service. On appeal, the Court set aside the
order of the High Court by holding that the High Court had mechanically
passed the order by suspending the conviction and the discretion ought
not to have been exercise by the High Court by passing such an order
suspending the conviction.
He drew on Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Gajanan, (2003)12 SCC 432, which had relied on the decision in K.C. Sareen vs. CBI, (2001) 6 SCC 584 to reiterate that only in exceptional cases, the Court should exercise the power of stay of conviction.
Justice Singh referred to Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana vs. Hasmat (2004) 6 SCC 175,
wherein, it was observed: “Section 389 of the Code deals with
suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of
the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and
suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389
is that requirement for the appellate court to record reasons in writing
for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed.
If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released
on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in
writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of
the relevant aspect and the order directing suspension of sentence and
grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.''
He recollected paragraph 15 of the Supreme Court's decision in Ravi Kant S. Patil vs. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, (2007) 1 SCC 673,
wherein the Court held that “it deserves to be clarified that an order
granting stay of conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be
resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case.”
Justice Singh also referred to Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Dutt vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 5 SCC 787,
wherein the petitioner Sanjay Dutt was charged under various sections
of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) (TADA) Act. He was
found guilty of offences punishable under Section 3 and 7 read with
Sections 25(IA) and 25(IB) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to six
years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner has filed appeal against his
conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court. Pending appeal, he
was granted bail on February 28, 2007. Thereafter, he had filed
application under Section 389 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
praying that execution of the order of conviction and sentence be
suspended pending final hearing of the appeal. In the petition, it was
mentioned that he belongs to a family which has been in long public
service in the country and that the petitioner is now desirous of
contesting election of the House of People from Lucknow Parliament
Constituency and in view of Section 8(3) of the Representation of People
Act, 1951, he has incurred disqualification from contesting the
election for becoming a member of either House of Parliament. Therefore,
it is prayed that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner be
suspended to enable him to contest the election. The Court declined his
prayer and held that “Despite all these favourable circumstances, we do
not think that this is a fit case where conviction and sentence could be
suspended so that the bar under Section 8(3) ) of the Representation of
People Act, 1951 will not operate against the petitioner. Law prohibits
any person who has been convicted of any offence and sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting the election
and such person shall be disqualified for a further period of six years
since his release. In the face of such a provision, the power of the
Court under Section 389 Cr.P.C. shall be exercised only under
exceptional circumstances. xxxxxxx “ In the present case, no such
circumstances are in favour of the petitioner, In view of the serious
offence for which he has been convicted by the Special Judge, we are not
inclined to suspend the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special
Judge in the present case. “
In the penultimate paragraph of his order, Justice Singh referred to Supreme Court's decision in Shyam Narain Pandey V. State of U.P. (2012) SCC 384. The Court observed: “ In the light of the principles stated above, the contention that the appellant will be deprived of his source of livelihood if the conviction is not stayed cannot be appreciated. For the appellant, it is a matter of deprivation of livelihood but he is convicted for deprivation of life of another person. Until he is otherwise declared innocent in appeal, the stain stands. The High Court has discussed in detail the background of the appellant , the nature of the crime, manner in which it was committed etc and his rightly held that it is not a very rare and exceptional case for staying the conviction.” The appellant Shyam Narain Pandey was a Principal of an institution, who was inter alia, convicted for murder.
He also referred to Supreme Court's judgement in State of Maharashtra vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, (2012) 12 SCC 384, wherein the Court held: “Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, a clear picture emerges to the effect that, the Appellate Court in an exceptional case, may put the conviction in abeyance along with the sentence, but such power must be exercised with great circumspection and caution, for the purpose of which, the applicant must satisfy the Court as regards the evil that is likely to befall him, if the said conviction is not suspended. The Court has to consider all the facts as are pleaded by the applicant, in a judicious manner and examined whether the facts and circumstances involved in the case are such, that they warrant such a course of action by it. The court additionally, must record in writing, its reasons for granting such relief. Relief of staying the order of conviction cannot be granted only on the ground that an employee may lose his job, if the same is not done.”
Relying on these judgements of the Supreme Court, Justice Singh observed:''40. It is often seen that after conviction of a person who was or is Member of Legislative Assembly or Member of Parliament, used to take a general plea for stay of operation and effect of his conviction that he wants to contest election and in case the judgment of his conviction is not stayed, he will be deprived of his right to contest the election which will result in irreparable loss and injury to him, but this Court feels that each and every case has to be decided on its own merit as well as considering all the surrounding circumstances and other attending factors including gravity of offences, nature of previous criminal history etc. No uniform and straight-jacket formula can be laid down for stay of conviction in all the cases. The parameter and legal position for stay of execution of sentence/bail and stay of conviction are different. Now it is the need of hour to have purity in politics, therefore for staying the judgment of conviction, the Courts should exercise its discretionary power sparingly with caution in a rare and appropriate cases. The purpose sought to be achieved by enacting disqualification on conviction for certain offences is to prevent person with criminal background from entering into politics and governance. Persons with criminal background pollute the process of election as they have no reservation from indulging in criminality to win an election. When persons having long criminal history turn into elected representatives and become law maker, they pose a serious threat to the functioning of a democratic system. The very future of our democracy gets imperilled when such offenders masquerade as leaders making a travesty of the entire system. The increasing trend of criminalisation of politics is dangerous and has steadily been eating into the vitals of our democratic polity along with growing corruption of a humongous nature. Considering the facts of this case that the appellant No.1 has secured acquittal in 28 criminal cases due to reasons that witnesses turned hostile as pointed out on behalf of the State, which has not been controverted on behalf of the accused-appellant No.1 and that there is no dispute that at present, 10 criminal cases (as noted in Chart-B) are still pending against him, I do not find any good ground, special reason or exceptional case to stay the operation and effect of impugned judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2024 of the appellant No.1-Dhananjay Singh.'
While at Allahabad High Court, in a criminal miscellaneous bail application, in August 2021, in UP since there was no practice of recording the statement of victim of sexual offenses by audio video means despite amendment made in the year 2009 in section 161 of CrP.C., Justice Singh issued directions to the state’s director general of police and principal secretary (Home) to issue guidelines to all SSPs on compliance with statutory provisions provided in first and second provisos to CrPC Section 161(3) within two months. He observed that “in majority of cases”, provisions of CrPC Section 161(3), which make it mandatory for police to have rape or molestation victims’ statements recorded by a woman officer and through audio-video recording, are not being followed. The two provisions under the said CrPC section say that a statement may also be recorded by audio video electronics means and that in cases of rape and molestation, it should be recorded by a woman police officer.
In a criminal appeal he found that the handwritten
reports are difficult to be correctly read. Justice Singh' order dated
August 30, 2022 directed that all the postmortem and injury reports must
be typed out and made legible and practice of handwritten reports be
discontinued. During the postmortem examination there should be DNA and
fingerprint sampling and necessary software must be developed for the
purpose. After the order, all the postmodern and injury reports are
being typed throughout the state of UP which is not only beneficial to
the advocates but also to the general public.
