13-Yr-Long Delay In Securing Convict’s Custody Indicates Deficiencies In Post-Conviction Follow-Up: Delhi High Court Enumerates Guidelines
The Delhi High Court was dealing with a case where the convict continued to enjoy the fruit of liberty for a long period of 13 years despite the dismissal of his appeal against conviction.
While observing that a long delay of 13 years in securing the custody of a murder convict after the dismissal of his appeal indicates the deficiencies in post-conviction/bail follow-up, the Delhi High Court has enumerated a set of guidelines to avoid recurrence of such cases.
The High Court was dealing with a case where the convict continued to enjoy the fruit of liberty for a long period of 13 years despite the dismissal of his appeal against conviction.
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, “This Court takes serious note of the extraordinary delay of about thirteen years in securing the custody of the appellant, whose appeal had already been dismissed. It indicates the deficiencies in the post-conviction/bail follow up and lack of coordination amongst the Trial Court, Jail Administration and the Police. Such an unusual delay portrays a serious systemic failure in ensuring enforcement of judicial orders. Such like episodes corrode the credibility of the Criminal Justice System.”
Standing Counsel Harsh Prabhakar represented the Appellant while Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302,397,34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 120-B IPC, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the sentence of the appellant was suspended for a period of 2 months, pursuant to which, the bond furnished by the appellant was accepted by the Trial Court. However, the appellant did not surrender thereafter. Subsequently, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.
Reasoning & Directions
The Bench noted that the Status Report filed by the Superintendent of Jail revealed that the appellant was arrested very recently, on October 13, 2025, and then sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence. The report submitted by the Jail Superintendent did not have a description of the effective steps taken to secure the arrest of the appellant in the last thirteen years.
Stating how such an unusual delay portrays a serious systemic failure in ensuring enforcement of judicial orders, the Bench enumerated the following guidelines to ensure that such incidents do not recur in future:
- Immediately upon the passing of any order granting interim bail or suspension of sentence, the Registry shall communicate the said order to the Trial Court, Jail Superintendent and the jurisdictional Police Station;
- In case the sentence is suspended for a specified period, the Trial Court, after accepting the bond, shall fix and record the date of surrender and list the matter immediately after the said date;
- It shall be the duty of the Jail Superintendent to intimate the Trial Court which accepted the bail bond as to whether the convict surrendered on the expiry of the specified period of interim bail, for taking further action
- In the event of failure of the convict to surrender on the due date and in the absence of any order extending the interim bail or suspension of sentence, the Trial Court shall take appropriate action as permissible in law to ensure that the convict is arrested and committed to prison.
- Where the appeal filed by the convict is dismissed and the appellant/convict is on bail, and even in cases where the appeal filed by the State/Complainant against acquittal is allowed, Superintendent Jail shall immediately pass the information to the Trial Court as to whether the convict has surrendered or not and, based on such report, the Trial Court shall take requisite steps and ensure that convict is committed to prison to serve the sentence.
The Bench also requested the Registrar General to circulate a copy of the order to all the Criminal Courts, Inspector General of Prisons and the Commissioner of Police for information and strict compliance.
Cause Title: Sonu @ Sonu Singh @ Gopal v. State (GNCT) of Delhi (Case No.: CRL.A. 463/2009)
Appearance
Appellant: Standing Counsel Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate Rakhi Dubey
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman, Advocates Manvendra Yadav, Atiq Ur. Rehman, Insp. Ashwani