Rouse Avenue Court Orders Release of Sukesh Chandrashekhar After Over 8 Years in Custody [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-01, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, has directed the release of Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar in a corruption case registered by the Crime Branch, holding that he has already undergone custody for a period exceeding the maximum punishment for the offences with which he is charged. The Court allowed his application under Section 436A CrPC (Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023) read with Article 21 of the Constitution, and held that the Second Proviso to Section 436A is mandatory. Special Judge Vidya Prakash passed the order on 28 October 2026.

The application was moved in CC No. 26/2019 arising out of FIR No. 186/2017, PS Crime Branch. The applicant submitted that he was arrested on 24.10.2017 and has remained in custody since, except for intervals of custody parole or interim bail. He contended that, even after excluding those periods, he had undergone custody of 8 years and 9 months. He is charged under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC read with Section 12 of the PC Act, for which the maximum punishment is seven years.

The applicant pointed out that he had earlier been granted bail under the First Proviso to Section 436A by an order dated 21.09.2022, subject to a personal bond and two sureties of ₹1 lakh each. He did not furnish the sureties, since he was in custody in other cases. He relied on Bhim Singh v. Union of India, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, among other decisions, and undertook to furnish a personal bond and appear regularly.

The State opposed the application on the ground that the applicant is involved in 29 criminal cases across various States, including cases under MCOCA. The Public Prosecutor, assisted by ACP Ramesh Chander Lamba, argued that, given the nature of the allegations and the modus operandi, he might influence and intimidate material witnesses if released. It was also argued that he should not take advantage of his own wrong, as he did not furnish the surety bonds ordered on 21.09.2022.

Examining Section 436A, the Court observed that its Second Proviso provides that no person shall in any case be detained during investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment for the offence. The use of the word “shall”, it held, shows the legislature’s intention that the provision is mandatory. The Explanation excludes only the period of delay in proceedings caused by the accused.

The Court noted that it was neither the case of the prosecution nor stated in its reply that the applicant had caused any delay in the proceedings, and that the Public Prosecutor could not point to any such instance. The prosecution therefore failed to bring the case within the Explanation.

As per the nominal roll provided by the jail authority, the applicant had undergone 8 years, 9 months and 14 days of custody as on 27.10.2026, even after excluding periods of parole and interim bail. This was, in the Court’s words, an admitted position on record, and it exceeded the seven-year maximum for the offences for which charges were framed on 13.10.2022.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil, as extracted in the earlier order of 21.09.2022, which noted that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” and that Section 436A is a substantive provision facilitating liberty under Article 21. It also noted that in Bhim Singh, the Supreme Court directed courts to identify undertrial prisoners who had completed half of the maximum period, and observed that the present case had travelled beyond that stage, so that the statutory obligation applied with greater force. It further relied on Hussainara Khatoon, in which it was held that undertrial prisoners detained beyond the maximum possible sentence must be released forthwith, as their detention is illegal and violates Article 21.

Allowing the application, the Court directed that the applicant not be detained during the pendency of trial and be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh on or before the next date. His release is subject to the conditions imposed on 21.09.2022: that he shall not contact or influence witnesses, shall not commit similar offences, shall not leave the country without the Court’s permission, and shall inform the Court of any change of address.

The Court clarified that nothing in the order is an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and directed that a copy be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for delivery to the applicant.

Appearances: For the State: Ld. Public Prosecutor, assisted by ACP Ramesh Chander Lamba.

Case Title: State v. Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar & Ors., I.A. No. 10/2026 in CC No. 26/2019 (FIR No. 186/2017, PS Crime Branch)

[Read Order]