New Delhi [India], October 30 (ANI): A Delhi court has directed the release of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar in a corruption case after finding that he had already spent 8 years, 9 months and 14 days in custody, exceeding the maximum seven-year imprisonment prescribed for the offences for which he is facing trial.
Special Judge (PC Act) Vidya Prakash of the Rouse Avenue Court directed that Chandrashekhar be released forthwith in the particular case, provided he is not required in any other case.
The order, however, does not mean his release from jail, as he continues to face trial in several other criminal cases and will remain in custody if required in those matters.
The court also directed him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh on or before the next date of hearing.
The order was passed on an application filed by Chandrashekhar under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Advocate Anant Malik, who represented Chandrashekhar, sought his release on the ground that he had already undergone custody beyond the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offences in the case.
The court accepted the contention, holding that the second proviso to Section 436A clearly prohibits detention of an undertrial prisoner beyond the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offence.
“The use of word ‘shall’ would clearly show the intention of the legislature that this provision is mandatory in nature,” the court observed.
It further noted that the prosecution had neither alleged nor demonstrated that Chandrashekhar was responsible for delaying the proceedings at any stage. Consequently, the exception provided under the explanation to Section 436A, which allows exclusion of custody attributable to delay caused by the accused, could not be invoked against him.
Chandrashekhar was arrested in the case on October 24, 2017, and had remained in custody since then, barring intermittent periods of custody parole and interim bail.
According to the nominal roll furnished by the jail authorities, he had undergone 8 years, 9 months and 14 days in custody as on October 27, 2026, even after excluding the periods of interim bail and parole. This was 1 year, 9 months and 14 days beyond the maximum seven-year punishment prescribed for the offences.
The court noted that charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of the PC Act were framed against him on October 13, 2022.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhim Singh v. Union of India, the court observed that the apex court had directed judicial officers to identify undertrial prisoners who had completed half of the maximum period of imprisonment and consider their release.
“In the case in hand, the applicant/accused is shown to have already undergone custody for a period exceeding the maximum period of punishment prescribed under law,” the court observed, adding that the statutory obligation under the second proviso to Section 436A would apply with greater force in the circumstances.
The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India.
It noted that the Supreme Court had held that undertrial prisoners who remain in custody for periods longer than the maximum term for which they could be sentenced must be released forthwith, as their continued detention would be illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The prosecution had opposed the application, contending that Chandrashekhar was involved in 29 criminal cases registered across different states and was facing serious charges, including under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The State had also expressed apprehension that he could influence or intimidate material witnesses and affect the fair conduct of the trial if released. It further argued that he should not be allowed to take advantage of his failure to furnish the surety bonds required under an earlier bail order dated September 21, 2022.
However, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish that Chandrashekhar had caused any delay in the proceedings in the present case. It concluded that his continued detention beyond the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences could not be sustained.
The release has been made subject to conditions imposed by the court in its September 21, 2022 order. Chandrashekhar has been directed not to contact or influence any witness, directly or indirectly, not to indulge in similar offences, not to leave the country without prior permission of the court and to inform the court in case of any change of address.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the application under Section 436A and would not amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (ANI)
Related reading
