A Special Court at Rouse Avenue directed that Sukesh Chandrashekhar be released in a 2017 Crime Branch case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, finding that his undertrial custody had exceeded the seven-year maximum sentence for the offences charged

A Delhi court on Wednesday ordered that Sukesh Chandrashekhar be released from jail in a 2017 corruption case registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch, holding that he had already been in custody for longer than the maximum sentence the law prescribes for the offences on which he is being tried. The release, however, is conditional on his not being required in any other case, and the State had told the court that he faces 29 criminal cases across the country.

Special Judge Vidya Prakash of the Rouse Avenue Court Complex allowed an application under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), read with Article 21 of the Constitution.

The application was moved in FIR No. 186/2017, Police Station Crime Branch (CC No. 26/2019), in which the order names the accused as "Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar".

The court directed that he "be not detained during pendency of trial in this case, and he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case".

The application rested on the Second Proviso to Section 436A, which states that no undertrial "shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law".

Reading the provision, the Special Judge held, "A bare reading of the aforesaid provision as a whole, and more particularly, its Second Proviso, would clearly show that no person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than maximum period of punishment provided under law. The use of word 'shall' would clearly show the intention of the legislature that this provision is mandatory in nature."

The court noted in the same paragraph that the Explanation to Section 436A carves out one exception: in computing detention for the purpose of bail, "the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded".

On whether the Explanation applied, the court found that the prosecution had not even pleaded it, "It is neither mentioned in the reply of the application in hand, nor it is the case of prosecution that the applicant/accused had been instrumental in causing delay in proceedings of the present case at any stage whatsoever. Ld. PP has not been able to draw attention of this Court, to such proceedings in this regard. Thus, the prosecution has failed to show that the case of applicant/accused would be covered by the explanation appended below S. 436A Cr.P.C. in any manner."

Charges were framed against Chandrashekhar on October 13, 2022 for offences punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of the PC Act. The maximum punishment for these offences, as recorded in the order, is seven years.

He was arrested in the case on October 24, 2017. As per the Nominal Roll furnished by the jail authorities, he had undergone custody of "8 years, 9 months and 14 days, as on 27.10.2026, even after excluding the period of his interim bail/parole granted to him from time to time".

On these figures, the court concluded, "That being so, it is an admitted position on record that the applicant/accused has already undergone custody in this case for a period exceeding the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the offences with which, he has been charged with in this case."

The court also referred to Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, recording that the Supreme Court had "categorically held that under-trial prisoners who have been in custody for periods longer than the maximum term for which they could be sentenced, must be released forthwith as their continued detention is illegal and violative of Article-21 of the Constitution of India". It noted that a similar view was taken in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731.

The observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which had been extracted in an earlier order of September 21, 2022 in the same case, were held to be applicable. That passage describes Section 436A as "a substantive one, facilitating liberty, being the core intendment of Article 21", and reiterates that "'bail is the rule and jail is an exception'".

The application was not the first under Section 436A in this matter. On September 21, 2022, the court's predecessor had allowed an application under the First Proviso, at a stage when charges were yet to be framed and co-accused persons were on bail, and admitted Chandrashekhar to bail on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of like amount.

According to the applicant, he did not furnish surety bonds because he was in custody in other cases. He submitted that he would furnish his personal bond and would be "regular and punctual in his appearance on each and every date of hearing in the event of his release from jail".

The State opposed the application principally on the ground that the applicant "is found involved in 29 criminal cases registered against him across various States in India, in which he has been charged with serious offences, including MCOCA".

The Public Prosecutor, assisted by ACP Ramesh Chander Lamba, also cited the nature of the allegations, the modus operandi employed, and an apprehension that the accused "may influence and intimidate the material witnesses or otherwise in fair conduct of the trial". It was further argued that because he had not furnished the surety bond required by the 2022 order, "he should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong under the garb of present application".

The order does not separately deal with these objections. It rests its conclusion on the mandatory text of the Second Proviso and on the absence of any showing of delay attributable to the accused.

Besides the judgments cited by the court, the applicant had relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021), and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978).

The court directed Chandrashekhar to furnish a personal bond of Rs. One Lakh, as undertaken by him, on or before the next date. His release was made subject to the same conditions imposed by the September 21, 2022 order, namely that he shall not try to contact or influence, directly or indirectly, any witness in the case; that he shall not indulge in the commission of similar offences in future; that he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the court; and that he shall intimate the court of any change of address.

Furthermore, the court clarified that nothing in the order "shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case" and that its observations were "solely for the purpose of deciding the present application". A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned for delivery to the accused.

Case Title: State v. Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar

Bench: Special Judge Vidya Prakash 

Order Date: October 28, 2026

Tags: