SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
SUMEET SURI – Appellant
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
CRL.A.-1434/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Hariharan, Chander M. Lall, H.S. Bhullar, Ekta Chandani, Sarthak Aggarwal, Sarabjeet Kaur, Punya Rekha Angara, Aman Akhtar, Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Arjan Singh Mandla, Gauri Ramachandran, Yashi Gupta, Fateh Singh Bhullar, Annanya Mehan
For the Respondents: Ajay Vikram Singh, K.K. Manan, Gaurav M. Liberhan, Sumant Vyas, Uditi Bali, Karmanya Singh Chaudhary, Lavish Chandra, Yakshi Kataria, Shivani Varun, Adriti Gupta, Arun Singh Rawat

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 389 (now Section 430 BNSS) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 409 - Suspension of sentence pending appeal - When convict is sentenced for a fixed term, appellate court should consider suspension liberally unless exceptional circumstances exist - Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421 and Aasif alias Pasha v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1644) relied upon.

(B) Criminal Appeal - Suspension of sentence - If appeal is not likely to be heard soon, failure to suspend sentence may render appeal infructuous - Appellate court must show special concern to make appeal right meaningful and effective.

(C) Criminal Breach of Trust - When conviction under Section 409 IPC is based on allegations of forgery and cheating, and the accused is acquitted on those charges (Sections 420/468/471 IPC), substratum for Section 409 may be knocked out - Accused may have fair chances of acquittal.

(D) Benefit of investigation lapses - Advantage of lapses in investigation enures to the accused, not prosecution.

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 409 IPC for criminal breach of trust of approximately Rs.3 crores from a company (ICPL) and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment with fine. He was acquitted of charges under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC. The appellant appealed the conviction and sought suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC (now Section 430 BNSS). The trial court had found that forgery of bills and minutes of board meetings were not proved. The appellant contended that once the forgery and cheating allegations failed, the charge under Section 409, which was based on those allegations, could not survive. The complainant argued that the acquittal was due to improper investigation and that an appeal against acquittal was proposed.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that at the stage of suspension of sentence, it should not re-appreciate evidence but can examine if there are compelling circumstances against suspension or if release would not be in public interest. The court found that the conviction under Section 409 appeared unsustainable in light of the acquittal on the forgery-related charges. The sentence was for a fixed term of 4 years, and the appeal (filed in 2025) was not likely to be heard soon. No compelling circumstances existed to deny suspension.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant is entitled to suspension of sentence given the fixed-term imprisonment and the acquittal on related charges? (ii) Whether the complainant's proposed appeal against acquittal affects the suspension plea?

Ratio Decidendi: A convict sentenced to a fixed term is entitled to liberal consideration for suspension of sentence pending appeal unless there are compelling circumstances indicating that release would not be in public interest. When the foundation of a conviction under Section 409 IPC rests on allegations of forgery and cheating that have been rejected by the trial court, the appellant has fair chances of acquittal, strengthening the case for suspension. The mere possibility of an appeal against acquittal by the complainant does not weaken the appellant's right to seek suspension.

Result: Application allowed; sentence suspended during pendency of appeal subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of family member and conditions to appear and keep mobile number working.

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

CRL.M.(BAIL) 2099/2025

1. The captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking to impugn the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), in SC No. 02/2022, whereby the appellant was held guilty of the charge under Section 409 IPC and acquitted of charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

2. The present application under Section 430 BNSS (erstwhile Section 389 CrPC) seeks to suspend the order on sentence dated 09.10.2025 whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and was further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- of which Rs. 1,00,000/- was payable to the State and Rs. 4,00,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357A Cr.P.C and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as culled from the record, is that in early 2005 Mr. Aniljeet Singh (hereinafter “complainant”) and Mr. Sumeet Suri (hereinafter “appellant”) were running separate business firms namely, M/s Fashion Wears and M/s Anjanne Clothing Private Limited (hereinafter “ACPL”), respectively. Consequently, on 01.04.2005 the complainant and the appellant joined hands to form another company namely, M/s Ivory Clothing Private Limited (hereinafter “ICPL”).

4. In November 2006, the complainant’s father fell ill and subsequently died, in the year 2008. During this period the appellant was looking after day to day affairs of ICPL. After his father's death, the complainant began managing ICPL’s business and discovered large unpaid dues to unknown creditors and advances to several debtors. The appellant, with the help of his employee Chander Mohan and through his own company ACPL, illegally transferred substantial funds disguised as personal withdrawals and company transfers. When confronted, the appellant offered to settle the matter through an MoU dated 29.08.2008, agreeing to pay Rs.1.30 crore and resign from ICPL.

5. The appellant entered into the aforesaid MoU with mala fide intentions so that his fraud remained undetected. The complainant without comprehending the systemic fraud committed by the appellant, signed the aforesaid MoU and settled the matter therein. However, the complainant hired auditors to look up the books of account of ICPL and received a bolt from the blue with regard to systemic fraud committed by the appellant to siphon off funds to the tune of approximately Rs. 3 crores from ICPL.

6. The charge-sheet was filed on 22.01.2014, followed by four supplementary charge-sheets (2014-2021). Charges under sections 409/420/468/471 IPC were framed against the appellant.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and after considering the evidences, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for dishonestly misappropriating company funds of ICPL to the tune of Rs. 3 crores, thereby constituting criminal breach of trust under section 409 IPC. However, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

9. It is the case of the appellant and so contended by the Mr. N Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the impugned conviction under section 409 IPC is inherently inconsistent and contradictory to acquittal under sections 420/468/471 IPC.

10. He submits that the entire case of the prosecution is predicated upon the allegations of forgery, fake bills, cheating and dishonest inducement and all these allegations were rejected by the learned Trial Court in its impugned judgment dated 25.09.2025. Therefore, once these allegations fail, the charge of criminal breach of trust under section 409 IPC, which is substantially imitative and grounded fundamentally in these allegations, cannot survive.

11. To buttress h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top