Delhi High Court Orders Strict Compliance With SC Directions On Release Of Undertrials Completing 1/3rd Sentence
The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered strict compliance with Supreme Court directions regarding release of undertrial prisoners who have completed one-third or one-half of their maximum sentence.
Justice Girish Kathpalia directed that a copy of the order be circulated to Principal District & Sessions Judges, Director General (Prisons), Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) and Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
The Court passed the order while granting bail to an accused in a cheating and impersonation case, while also criticising the Delhi Police for filing a “misleading” status report.
An FIR was registered against accused Rishabh Gehlot for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 506 of IPC.
As per the prosecution, Gehlot allegedly impersonated himself as “Shaurya” and cheated the complainant and her daughter on multiple occasions under various pretexts.
The prosecution relied on WhatsApp chats, audio recordings and bank statements to substantiate the allegations.
On the other hand, the defence argued that the prosecution story was inherently improbable, questioning how the complainant could have been deceived repeatedly under different pretexts.
At the outset, the Court deprecated the conduct of the Delhi Police for referring to certain audio recordings in its status report, which were later admitted in court to pertain to a co-accused and not Gehlot. It noted that no explanation was offered for such a misleading reference.
The Court also expressed concern that out of five accused persons named in the case, only Gehlot was arrested, while others including those allegedly involved in impersonation and forgery, remained at large. This, the Court observed, raised “unanswered questions” about the investigation.
“Of course, it is the prerogative of the investigator to arrest or not to arrest an accused. But in the factual matrix of the present kind, such conduct on the part of the investigating agency raises unanswered questions, to say the least. That too in the light of the above mentioned observations that the status report was misleading while making reference to audio recordings, which today are stated to be not concerning the present accused applicant,” the Court said.
The Bench relief on Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Supreme Court's directions in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. It noted that Gehlot had already undergone more than one-third of the maximum possible sentence of seven years.
The Court emphasised that prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial weighed in favour of granting bail.
“Also, I find force in the submission of learned senior counsel for accused/applicant that despite specific directions of the Supreme Court extracted above, so 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 Court said.
Title: RISHABH GEHLOT v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)