“Systemic Failure”: Delhi High Court Flags 13-Year Delay In Arresting Life Convict After Appeal Dismissal, Lays Guidelines
The Delhi High Court has strongly deprecated a 13-year delay in securing the custody of a life convict whose criminal appeal had already been dismissed, calling it a serious systemic failure that corrodes the credibility of the criminal justice system.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja was dealing with an appeal filed by Sonu who had been convicted in 2009 in a murder case and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Court said that it was one of the cases where the appellant continued to enjoy the fruit of liberty for a long period of thirteen years despite his appeal against conviction having been dismissed in 2012.
While the appellant's sentence was suspended for two months in December 2010, the Court noted that he never surrendered thereafter, even after his appeal was dismissed on September 19, 2012. The appellant was arrested only on October 13, 2025, nearly thirteen years later.
Taking “serious note” of the extraordinary delay of about thirteen years in securing the custody of the appellant, the Court said:
“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.”
To prevent recurrence of such incidents, the Bench issued comprehensive guidelines on the issue to be followed by all the authorities.
The Court directed that 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.
It added that 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,” the Court said.
It added that where the convict fails 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 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 said.
The Bench directed 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.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Standing Counsel, DHLCSC for Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Adv. (DHCLSC)
Counsel for Respondent: Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr. Atiq Ur. Rehman, Advocates
Title: SONU @ SONU SINGH @ GOPAL v. STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI