Court Convicts Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for Impersonating Supreme Court Judge in Bail Plot

In a landmark judgment that sends a strong message against attempts to subvert the judicial process, Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, convicted jailed conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge to pressure a judicial officer into granting him bail. The court described the entire episode as an "absurd theatrical production" and an act of "institutional defiance."

The 'Absurd Theatrical Production'

The case originates from April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in a corruption case (FIR No. 56/2017) before Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary. According to the prosecution, he gained access to the mobile phone of Constable Manjeet and used it to call Judge Chaudhary's official landline and personal mobile number. The caller first posed as the private secretary of a Supreme Court judge, identified by the initials "KJ," and then claimed to be the judge himself, asserting he was calling on behalf of the Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium. He directed the judge to release Chandrasekhar on bail immediately and warned of serious professional repercussions if she did not comply.

"The accused did not merely cross the line; he leapt over it into the realm of fatal institutional overreach ," the court observed, calling the impersonation a deliberate strike at the independence of the judiciary .

Judge's Swift Action and Corroborated Testimony

Judge Poonam Chaudhary took prompt action, verifying the calls with the Supreme Court registry, where she learned no such calls had originated. She filed a formal complaint the next day. The court found her testimony " consistent, cogent, and materially corroborated " by call detail records (CDR) from the mobile number used by the accused, as well as evidence from Subhash Rathi, who had provided the SIM card to Constable Manjeet, and Constable Manjeet himself, who confirmed the accused had used his phone.

Despite the compelling evidence, the court strongly criticized the Delhi Police investigation, calling it "superficial, shoddy, and marked by apathy." Investigators failed to recover the mobile phone, secure CCTV footage from the Crime Branch premises, collect key call records, or promptly examine material witnesses. The court also pointedly questioned the role of Constable Manjeet, suggesting he may have facilitated the accused's access to the phone, and directed the Commissioner of Police to re-examine the matter.

Guilt Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Rejecting defence arguments that the absence of a voice recording or formal bail application was fatal, the court held that the cumulative evidence —the CDR, the consistent testimony of the judicial officer, and the accused's access to the phone—established guilt beyond reasonable doubt . "Orders are passed in courtrooms, not dictated over clandestine telephone calls. Judicial discretion is exercised on the basis of the judicial record, not on the basis of the caller's designation," the court stated.

Chandrasekhar was convicted under Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 507 (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code.

"The accused attempted precisely such a backdoor entry into the judicial process. The evidence has closed that door," the court concluded, setting the case for arguments on sentencing.