The Supreme Court today(November 2) refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order declining to stay the conviction and sentence of conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar pending appeal.

He was recently convicted and sentenced under Sections 170(Personating a Public Servant), 189(Threat of Injury to a Public Servant) and 507(Criminal Intimidation by Anonymous Communication) of the Indian Penal Code for impersonating a Supreme Court Judge and attempting to pressurise a judicial officer to grant bail.

Chandrashekhar had allegedly impersonated the private secretary of a sitting Supreme Court Judge and subsequently the Judge himself, making calls to a judicial officer in an attempt to secure favourable orders in his case. The allegation against Sukesh was that while in police custody in connection with a 2017 corruption case he obtained access to a constable's mobile phone in whose custody he was and thereafter used it to contact the official landline and mobile number of the judicial officer who was presiding over the corruption case.

On August 20, the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted him, and on August 29, sentenced him to imprisonment.

Against this, he approached the Additional Sessions Judge and then the Delhi High Court for staying his conviction and sentence under Section 528 read with Section 430(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The challenge was primarily against the strong observations made by the Trial Court regarding the conduct attributed to Chandrashekhar while recording his conviction. However, both Courts dismissed his plea, with the High Court stating that this must be examined by the Court hearing his appeal and not at this stage.

The matter was taken up before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan.

Justice Pardiwala questioned Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam (for Suresh) as to why he wants a stay on the conviction. Alam stated that observations were made because he has 31 pending criminal antecedents against him. He stated that the observations were made despite the Trial Court itself noting that he has not been convicted in these cases.

He said: "If there is no conviction orders against me, this[the observations of the trial court] is only going to prejudice all the other trials pending. Mylords may recall that as per Section 41 of the new Evidence Act, it will be deemed to be the evidence of my bad character."

However, the Court refused to interfere, stating that it warrants no interference. "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the materials no record, there is no error, not to speak of any error of law, have been committed by the High Court by passing the impugned order. It goes without saying that all other trials should proceed on its own merit in accordance with law," it ordered.

Notably, in it's order, the trial court had objected to the manner in which Sukesh had attempted to influence the judicial officer. It noted:

"This world has seen many a 'inglorious conmen' and 'Natwar Lals', who have deceived businessmen, companies, gullible investors or unsuspecting members of the public. But the kind of deception practised by Sukesh, the conman standing before this Court in this case with the intention of altering the course of judicial proceedings, lends the mischief an altogether different and extremely egregious character."

"Having spent a career spoofing caller IDs, impersonating Union Ministers, and convincing gullible millionaires that he held the keys to the corridors of power, accused Sukesh appears to have fallen victim to his own propaganda. He operated under the dangerous belief that if a lie is only grand enough and uttered with sufficient audacity, the rule of law will simply bow its head and step aside. He forgot that impersonating a bureaucrat or a political broker is a transactional crime born of greed but impersonating a Supreme Court Judge or his Secretary, is an act of institutional defiance," the Trial Court had added.