Delhi High Court Directs Strict Compliance With Supreme Court Guidelines On Release Of First-Time Offenders

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 judgement titled Rishabh Gehlot Vs State (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Appln. 2071/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:3039, which 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.

Court Observations On Excessive Incarceration Period

It must be noted that the single judge bench comprising the Honourable Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia took note of the unpalatable fact that the accused are languishing in jails even after suffering incarceration for a period of one-third or at times even more than that of the maximum period for which they can be sentenced.

Strict Compliance With Section 479 Of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS)

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.

Case Background And Allegations Against The Accused

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.

Prosecution Allegations

• Rishabh allegedly impersonated one Shaurya on several occasions.
• The intent was to dupe the mother-daughter duo of their money.

Court Considerations Before Granting Bail

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.

Opening Paragraph of the Judgement

At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, persuasive and pertinent oral judgement authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising the 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 offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B/506 IPC.”

Case Background And Procedural History

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 the 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 the 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.”

Court Observation On Investigating Agency Conduct

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 a 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.”

Prosecution Case Summary

To put things in perspective, the bench envisages in para 5 while elaborating on the prosecution version, stating that:

“Broadly speaking, the prosecution's 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.”

Allegations and Pretexts Used

• Arranging a government job for children of the complainant de facto
• Arranging tenders in MTNL, BMW and Google
• Investment in companies
• Marriage arrangement for complainant’s daughter
• Medical surgery expenses for nephew in Australia
• Death-related expenses and loan repayment of brother-in-law
• Transport of deceased father’s body from Australia

Evidence Relied Upon By Prosecution

“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.”

Defence Arguments

Do also note the bench points out in para 6 that:

• “Learned senior counsel for the 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.”
• “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.”
• “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) is 7 years' imprisonment; the accused/applicant has spent more than 1/3rd of the period in jail.”
• “In terms of the 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 the 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.”
• “The alleged cheating transctions took place in the years 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.”

Questions Raised On Investigating Agency Conduct

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 the 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 a 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.” :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Argument On Prosecution Story Credibility

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “In the above backdrop, the argument of learned senior counsel for the 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 the trial court on the basis of evidence adduced. However, for present purposes, the argument is significant.”

Incarceration Period And Section 479 BNSS

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 a 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.”

Court Decision On Bail

Liberty Of The Accused

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.”

Bail Conditions Imposed

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.”

Order Communication Directions

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.”

Strict Compliance Of Supreme Court Directions

Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then aptly concludes in para 15.1 by encapsulating the cornerstone of this notable judgement, postulating precisely that, “Also, I find force in the submission of learned senior counsel for the 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 of 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 the 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, a 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 with the abovementioned directions of the Supreme Court. A copy of this order shall also be 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.”

Conclusion

• • The Delhi High Court emphasised strict implementation of Supreme Court bail directions.
• Focus on undertrials in prolonged custody.
• Relief for first-time offenders who have served more than one-third of their sentence.
• Strong directive for systemic compliance by judicial and prison authorities.

In conclusion, we thus see that the 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!