Sukesh Chandrasekhar Moves Delhi HC Against Conviction, Alleges Trial Court Had ‘Made Up Its Mind’ Before Verdict

Convicted in a 2017 case of allegedly impersonating a Supreme Court judge to influence a judicial officer, Sukesh Chander Shekhar has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court judgment, alleging that the proceedings were marred by “prejudgment” and that the judgment contains remarks about his character that went beyond the evidence in the case.

The writ petition, filed on August 24, seeks setting aside of the August 20 judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts, and a fresh hearing of final arguments before another court. It also seeks deletion of what it describes as “derogatory, pejorative, stigmatic and unnecessary” observations about Shekhar’s character. The matter, according to his counsel Advocate Anant Malik, was mentioned urgently before Justice Madhu Jain on Wednesday and is listed for August 31.

The trial court had convicted Shekhar under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the IPC in FIR No. 100/2017 of Subzi Mandi police station. The prosecution case was that while Shekhar was in custody in another corruption case, he obtained access to a police constable’s mobile phone and used it to call then Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary. According to the trial court, the caller impersonated first the private secretary of a Supreme Court judge and subsequently the judge himself, and sought to influence the judicial officer regarding bail.

The petition’s central challenge is that the trial court had indicated the outcome even before pronouncing judgment.

It refers to the final arguments on August 17, when the court repeatedly told Shekhar's counsel that the submissions “will not lead to you to acquittal” and “I will not acquit on this basis”. The petition says Shekhar approached the high court before the judgment was pronounced, and therefore his allegation of prejudgment could not be dismissed as a reaction to an adverse verdict.

The petition also takes exception to the language used in the judgment. It points to repeated references to Shekhar as a “conman” and “seasoned conman”, including the observation: “A seasoned conman does not require a telephone directory to commit an offence". It argues that such characterisation was used while dealing with the disputed question of how the telephone number of the judicial officer was obtained.

The plea relies on an earlier 2022 order in a separate case involving Shekhar, in which the court had said there must not be any “prejudice or predetermined description” of an accused facing trial. The petition argues that the trial court’s judgment nevertheless repeatedly used similar descriptions and referred to alleged conduct involving other persons and cases.

Shekhar’s lawyers have also challenged the manner in which his defence evidence was closed. After the prosecution examined 16 witnesses between February 2019 and April 2026, Shekhar was allowed to lead defence evidence. His wife, Leena Paulose, was examined, while two other proposed witnesses could not be served. The trial court declined a further opportunity on July 9, citing the age of the case. A revision against the order was dismissed on July 17.

The petition further points to the absence of recovery of the mobile handset and SIM allegedly used for the calls and the absence of a voice recording. However, the trial court said the prosecution case was supported by call detail records and the testimony of the police personnel who said they saw Shekhar using the phone. It held that these circumstances, together with the judicial officer’s testimony, formed a corroborated chain of evidence.

The trial court also acknowledged investigative lapses, including failure to recover the phone and SIM and examine certain witnesses, but held that these deficiencies did not destroy the prosecution case.

The writ petition says the conviction and the disputed remarks must be examined separately. It seeks expunction of the remarks even if the operative conviction is left open to independent appellate remedies. It has also sought deferment of sentencing while the High Court considers the petition.

The trial court had fixed August 27 for hearing Shekhar on the question of sentence.

Case Title: SUKESH CHANDER SHEKHAR @ SUKESH vs. THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)