Sukesh Chandrasekhar Convicted By Delhi Court For Impersonating Supreme Court Judge To Seek Bail

Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts, delivered the judgment on 20 August, convicting Sukesh under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code. The court has directed that the convict be heard on the point of sentence on 27 August 2026.

What the case was about

According to the prosecution's case, Sukesh, then in police custody in connection with a corruption case (FIR No. 56/2017, PS Crime Branch), obtained access to the mobile phone of Constable Manjeet, the police official in whose custody he was, and used it to call the official landline and mobile number of Poonam Chaudhary, the then Special Judge (PC Act cases, ACB) hearing his corruption case.

Sukesh allegedly first impersonated the Private Secretary of a then-sitting Supreme Court judge, and subsequently impersonated the judge himself, in an attempt to persuade the judicial officer to grant him bail at the earliest; reportedly threatening her with adverse professional consequences if she refused.

The FIR was registered at PS Subzi Mandi (later transferred to the Crime Branch) on 29 April 2017, a day after the alleged offence. The chargesheet was filed on 20 April 2018, and charges were framed on 14 December 2018. The trial ran for years, prosecution evidence was recorded from February 2019 to April 2026, with 16 witnesses examined. Sukesh pleaded not guilty, led defence evidence including testimony from his wife Leena Paulose, and final arguments were heard on 17 August 2026.

The judgment is unusually pointed in its characterisation of the conduct. The court observed that the case was "qualitatively different from an ordinary case of cheating or impersonation," representing "an alleged attempt to strike at the very foundation upon which the judicial process rests." It noted: "Orders are passed in courtrooms, not dictated over clandestine telephone calls. Judicial discretion is exercised on the basis of the judicial record, not on the basis of the caller's designation."

The court further remarked that Sukesh had 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," adding 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."

Findings on the charges

The court held that the ingredients of all three offences stood established: Section 170 (personation of a public servant) through the "complete and deliberate assumption of the character of a public servant"; Section 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) through the calculated attempt "to induce a judicial officer, by invoking the supposed authority of a superior constitutional court, to exercise her judicial discretion in a particular manner"; and Section 507 (criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication) since "the anonymity was not accidental; it was integral to the design."

The court concluded: "The accused is therefore held guilty and is hereby convicted for offences punishable under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code."

Court flags "disturbing possibility" over Constable Manjeet's role

In a significant part of the judgment, the court expressed serious concern over the un-investigated role of Constable Manjeet, whose mobile phone was used to make the impersonation calls. The court stated that circumstances "disclose a far more disturbing possibility: that Constable Manjeet may not merely have been a victim of the misuse of his mobile phone, but may himself have played a facilitating role in enabling accused Sukesh to obtain access to the device."

The court noted that Manjeet did not report the misuse of his phone to his seniors or the judicial officer at the time, and did not lodge a missing-phone complaint when the device later went missing, circumstances it called "wholly disproportionate" to have been treated as "an incidental lapse." It further observed that relevant CCTV footage from the police premises was never seized, stating: "This Court believes that there is much more to this case than meets the eyes and it is perhaps to cover up the role of Ct. Manjeet in supplying the phone to the accused Sukesh, that the CCTV footage has not been seized by the IO."

The court added that the disciplinary censure already administered to Manjeet "appears wholly inadequate when viewed against the gravity of the circumstances requiring examination."

Directions to the Delhi Police

The court directed the Commissioner of Police/DCP concerned to re-examine Constable Manjeet's role, specifically directing inquiry into 12 listed aspects; including how the accused obtained access to the phone, whether the device was locked, who knew the password, why no missing-phone complaint was filed, and "whether fresh departmental or criminal proceedings are warranted against Constable Manjeet."

Separately, the court directed that a copy of the judgment be placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for broader institutional examination of investigative lapses identified in the case, including gaps in evidence collection, witness examination, and documentation; directing that this be treated "not punitive" but "corrective and preventive."

The matter has been listed for 27 August 2026, when Sukesh will be heard on the question of sentence.