Process Bail Applications Of First Time Offenders Who Have Served 1/3rd Of Maximum Sentence: Delhi High Court Calls For Compliance With Apex Court's Directions

The High Court was considering a bail application of the accused/applicant booked in a case registered under Sections 406,409,420,120B, 506 of the IPC.

The High Court relied upon the judgment of the In Re:- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2013) whereby the Apex Court has directed immediate implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS by calling upon Superintendents of Jails across the country wherever accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of one-half/one-third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail.

The Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia ordered, “It is submitted by learned senior counsel for accused/applicant that the jail authorities should strictly comply with the above noted directions of the Supreme Court. That being so, as suggested by learned senior counsel, copy of this order be sent to all Principal District and Sessions Judges as well as the Director General (Prisons), Delhi with the directions to ensure strict compliance of the above mentioned directions of the Supreme Court.”

Senior Advocate Amit Chadha represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Ahlawat represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that the accused/applicant Rishabh impersonated as Shaurya and cheated the complainant de facto lady and her daughter multiple times, inducing them to pay money under different pretexts, such as arranging a government job for the children of the complainant de facto, arranging tenders in MTNL, BMW and Google, apart from investment in companies. It was alleged that the accused/applicant even collected money from the complainant de facto in the name of a surgery which his nephew had to undergo in Australia. The accused/applicant also took money from the complainant under the pretext of bringing the dead body of his father from Australia. According to the prosecution, the WhatsApp chats between the accused/applicant and the complainant, as well as audio recordings of conversations, in addition to the bank statements of the accused/applicant, established the offences alleged.

Reasoning

On an examination of the facts of the case, the Bench found a misleading status report filed by ACP of EOW, Delhi, referring to certain audio conversations recorded between the victim and the accused/applicant. The Bench deprecated such conduct on the part of the investigating agency. It was further noticed that only one accused was arrested out of five, and the reason for the same was not brought before the Bench.

The Bench further took note of the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused/applicant, especially in the light of the status of proceedings where even charges had not been framed, and supplementary investigation was being carried out. “Admittedly, the accused/applicant is a first time offender and has never been convicted of any offence in the past. The accused/applicant has spent more than 1/3rd of the maximum imposable sentence of 07 years incarceration in jail, so Section 479 BNSS comes into play”, it added.

Thus, the Bench allowed the bail application and directed the accused/applicant to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond for Rs 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Bench also found force in the submission of the counsel for accused/applicant that despite specific directions of the Supreme Court, many first time offender prisoners (who have never been convicted of any offence in the past) are languishing in jails even after suffering incarceration for a period 1/3rd or at times even more than that of the maximum period for which they can be sentenced. The Bench thus ordered all the Principal District and Sessions Judges as well as the Director General (Prisons), Delhi, to ensure strict compliance with the directions of the Apex Court.

Cause Title: Rishabh Gehlot v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3039)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Chadha, Advocates Kunal Sharma, Puneet Rathor, Mohit Singh, Atin Chadha, M. Chadha, Harjas Singh, Rekha Yadav, A. Singh, Ankush Sharma

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Ahlawat, IO/SI Lakhan, Advocates Deepak Tiwari, Saksham Upadhyay

Click here to read/download Order