$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 463/2009 SONU @ SONU SINGH @ GOPAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Standing Counsel, DHLCSC for Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Adv. (DHCLSC)

versus STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr.

Atiq Ur. Rehman, Advocates Insp. Ashwani, PS GTB Enclave.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. This is one of those cases, where the appellant continued to enjoy the fruit of liberty for a long period of thirteen years despite his appeal against conviction having been dismissed by this Court.

2. Perusal of record reveals that the appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 24^th January, 2009 under Sections 302/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] read with Section 120-B IPC, and vide order dated 31^st January, 2009, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine. Feeling aggrieved, appellant preferred CRL.A. 463/2009 before this Court.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the sentence of appellant was suspended for a period of 02 months, vide order dated 13^th December 2010, pursuant to which, the bond furnished by the appellant was accepted by the learned Trial Court, but it appears that appellant did not surrender thereafter. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 19^th September 2012, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.

4. Status Report filed by the Superintendent Jail reveals that the appellant was arrested as recently as on 13^th October 2025, and then sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence. The report submitted by the Jail Superintendent does not elaborate as to what effective steps were taken to secure the arrest of the appellant in last thirteen years.

5. This Court takes serious note of the extraordinary delay of about thirteen years in securing the custody of the appellant, whose appeal had already been dismissed. It indicates the deficiencies in the post-conviction/bail follow up and lack of coordination amongst the Trial Court, Jail Administration and the Police. Such an unusual delay portrays a serious systemic failure in ensuring enforcement of judicial orders. Such like episodes corrode the credibility of the Criminal Justice System. Hence, in order to ensure that such incidents do not re- occur in future, there is need to ensure that a mechanism be set in place and for the said purpose, following guidelines are laid down to be followed by all concerned:-

i) Immediately upon the passing of any order granting interim bail or suspension of sentence, the Registry shall communicate the said order to the Trial Court, Jail Superintendent and the jurisdictional Police Station;

ii) In case the sentence is suspended for a specified period, the Trial Court, after accepting the bond, shall fix and record the date of surrender and list the matter immediately after the said date;

iii) It shall be the duty of the Jail Superintendent to intimate the Trial Court which accepted the bail bond as to whether the convict surrendered on the expiry of the specified period of interim bail, for taking further action;

iv) In the event of failure of the convict to surrender on the due date and in the absence of any order extending the interim bail or suspension of sentence, the Trial Court shall take appropriate action as permissible in law to ensure that convict is arrested and committed to prison.

v) Where the appeal filed by the convict is dismissed and the appellant/convict is on bail, and even in cases where the appeal filed by the State/Complainant against acquittal is allowed, Superintendent Jail shall immediately pass the information to the Trial Court as to whether the convict has surrendered or not and, based on such report, the Trial Court shall take requisite steps and ensure that convict is committed to prison to serve the sentence.

6. No further orders are required in the present proceedings. However, the le