Release First-Time Offenders Who Have Served More Than One-Third of Their Maximum Sentence In Jail: Delhi HC
It is entirely in the fitness of things that while taking the right step in the right direction, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Rishabh Gehlot Vs State (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Appln. 2071/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:3039 that was pronounced as recently as on 13.04.2026 has directed all the district courts, prison authorities, and district legal services authorities in the national capital to strictly comply with the Supreme Court’s directions on releasing first-time offenders who have served more than one-third of their maximum sentence in jail. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia took note of the unpalatable fact that accused are languishing in jails even after suffering incarceration for a period one-third or at times even more than that of the maximum period for which they can be sentenced. It was made indubitably clear by the Delhi High Court that the authorities must ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions pertaining to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), which provides for the conditional release of certain accused persons held in prolonged custody.
It must be disclosed here for the exclusive benefit of my esteemed readers that the Delhi High Court was hearing a bail application that was moved by one Rishabh who is accused of cheating a woman and her daughter. The prosecution made the allegation that Rishabh had impersonated one Shaurya on several occasions to dupe the mother-daughter duo of their money. The Court took into account the irrefutable fact that charges were yet to be framed against Rishabh and that further investigation was still ongoing. While considering the circumstances, the Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused.
At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, persuasive and pertinent oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 45/2021 of PS Economic Offences Wing for offence under Section 406/409/420/120B/506 IPC.”
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 2 that, “This regular bail application was listed for hearing for the first time on 28.05.2025 before another bench of this court. Thereafter, the matter came up before another learned Single Judge of this court, where the matter was heard for five dates of hearing, and even specific queries were raised by the learned Judge as mentioned in order dated 13.11.2025, for explanation whereof time was taken by the counsel for the accused/applicant. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench, and on the very first date (28.03.2026), after traversing through the previous record, I directed the application to be listed before the same bench where it was heard partly. Accordingly, it was placed before the same learned Single Judge, but there the learned senior counsel for accused/applicant submitted that this is not a part heard matter, so the application was sent back to this bench and the same has been listed today.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “At the outset, I must deprecate conduct on the part of the investigating agency in this case, as misleading status report dated 28.07.2025 was filed by Mr. Keshav Mathur, ACP, EOW, Delhi making reference to certain audio conversations recorded between the victim and the accused/applicant. On being called upon to play those audio recordings in court, the IO/SI Lakhan stated that those audio recordings pertain to co-accused and not to the present accused/applicant. But no explanation has been advanced as to why that reference was made related to the present status report qua the present accused/applicant.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 5 while elaborating on the prosecution version stating that, “Broadly speaking, prosecution case is that the accused/applicant Rishabh impersonated as Shaurya and cheated the complainant de facto lady and her daughter multiple times, inducing them to pay money under different pretexts, such as arranging a government job for children of the complainant de facto, arranging tenders in MTNL, BMW and Google, apart from investment in companies. Besides, in the name of getting daughter of the complainant de facto married, money was received by the accused/applicant. Not only this, the accused/applicant even collected money from the complainant de facto in the name of a surgery which his nephew had to undergo in Australia, followed by death of that nephew and loan of brother-in-law of the accused/applicant to be paid back. Further, the accused/applicant also took money from the complainant de facto under the pretext of bringing the dead body of his father from Australia. According to prosecution, the WhatsApp chats between the accused/applicant and the complainant de facto as well as audio recordings of conversations in addition to the bank statements of the accused/applicant establish the offences alleged.”
Do also note, the Bench points out in para 6 that, “Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant contends that the prosecution case does not inspire confidence insofar as it is not believable that a person would allow herself to be cheated so many times on so many different pretexts. Something more than what meets the eye exists in this case according to learned senior counsel. Further, it is contended that out of 05 persons named as accused in this case, 04 were not arrested and it is only the accused/applicant who was arrested and suffers incarceration. Learned senior counsel submits that the accused/applicant got arrested on 21.07.2023 and the maximum sentence that can be imposed under Section 420 IPC (under which the chargesheet was filed), being 07 years imprisonment, the accused/applicant has spent more than 1/3rd period in jail, so in terms of order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re:- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, [Writ Petition (Civil) 406/2013], as well as law laid down by this court in the case of Suleman Samad vs State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Application 766/2025, the accused/applicant deserves to be granted bail. Further, it is contended by learned senior counsel that the alleged cheating transactions took place in the year 2016-17 but the FIR came to be registered only in the year 2021 and there is no explanation of this delay. Lastly, it is contended that even the WhatsAPP chats referred to by prosecution do not involve the present accused/applicant.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 8 that, “From the aforesaid, many questions arise about the conduct of the investigating agency. It remains unexplained as to why out of 05 accused persons, only one was arrested. As recorded in the chargesheet itself (pages 66-67 of paperbook) , it is co-accused Nitin who impersonated himself as CBI Sub Inspector and extorted money from the complainant de facto under the pretext of getting back her allegedly cheated money from the present accused/applicant. Further, it is recorded in the chargesheet that the co-accused Nitin even forged an identity card to represent himself as CBI Sub Inspector. But Nitin has not been arrested so far. For that matter, as mentioned above, even Pankaj has not been arrested so far. Of course, it is the prerogative of the investigator to arrest or not to arrest an accused. But in the factual matrix of the present kind, such conduct on the part of the investigating agency raises unanswered questions, to say the least. That too in the light of the above mentioned observations that the status report was misleading while making reference to audio recordings, which today are stated to be not concerning the present accused/applicant.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “In the above backdrop, argument of learned senior counsel for accused/applicant is that the manner in which the prosecution story unfolds presents a picture that is not believable. But that must be tested only by trial court on the basis of evidence adduced. However, for present purposes, the argument is significant.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 10 noting that, “Most important is the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused/applicant, especially in the light of the status of proceedings where till date even charges have not been framed and rather supplementary investigation is being carried out. Admittedly, the accused/applicant is a first time offender and has never been convicted of any offence in the past. The accused/applicant has spent more than 1/3rd of the maximum imposable sentence of 07 years incarceration in jail, so Section 479 BNSS comes into play.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 13 that, “Considering the above circumstances, especially the mandate of Section 479 BNSS, I do not find any reason to further deprive liberty to the accused/applicant.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then directs and holds in para 14 that, “Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.”
In addition, the Bench then also directs and holds in para 15 that, “A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then aptly concludes in para 15.1 by encapsulating the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Also, I find force in the submission of learned senior counsel for accused/applicant that despite specific directions of the Supreme Court extracted above, so many first time offender prisoners (who have never been convicted of any offence in the past) are languishing in jails even after suffering incarceration for a period 1/3rd or at times even more than that of the maximum period for which they can be sentenced. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for accused/applicant that the jail authorities should strictly comply with the above noted directions of the Supreme Court. That being so, as suggested by learned senior counsel, copy of this order be sent to all Principal District and Sessions Judges as well as the Director General (Prisons), Delhi with the directions to ensure strict compliance of the above mentioned directions of the Supreme Court. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, DHCLSC as well as to the Member Secretary, DLSA with the directions to take up such matters so that directions of the Supreme Court in this regard are complied with, in the letter and spirit.”
In conclusion, we thus see that Delhi High Court has made it indubitably clear in this leading case that the Supreme Court directions on bail to undertrials in prolonged custody must be implemented. It was also made crystal clear that directions on releasing first-time offenders who have served more than one-third of their maximum sentence in jail must be implemented. There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
