Chander Pal Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 09 October, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 04 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010329522026
+ CRL.A. 691/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1394/2026
CHANDER PAL SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Kaadambari Singh Puri, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Mayank Tripathi, Mr. Vijay
Shukla, Ms. Samkiti Jain and Mr.
Gyan Sancheti, Advs.
M: 9582504508
Email:
[email protected]
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, SPP with Mr.
Mukul Katyal, Advs.
M: 9871138813
Email:
[email protected]

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
INTRODUCTION
1. The present application has been filed under Section 480 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)/Section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), on behalf of the appellant, i.e.,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 1 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

Chander Pal Singh S/o Late Kishan Lal, seeking suspension of the execution
of sentence and for release on bail during the pendency of the captioned
appeal.
th
2. Vide judgment on conviction dated 06 July, 2026, and the order on
th
sentence dated 16 July, 2026, in CBI 48/2021 , passed by the Special Judge,
(PC Act) (CBI) – 13, Rouse Avenue District Court Complex, New Delhi, in
connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”) bearing no. RC DAI-
2021-A-0019, the appellant was sentenced, on two counts, namely, under
Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) and Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) read with Section 7 of the PC
Act, to rigorous imprisonment of 04 (four) years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand only), in default of which, further simple
imprisonment of 01 (one) month, for each count.
3. It was further directed that substantive periods of imprisonment
awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently. The appellant was taken into
th
custody on 06 July, 2026, i.e., upon the pronouncement of the order of
sentence and is presently in custody.
4. It is to be noted that the fine of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand
only), i.e., Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on each of the two
th
counts of sentencing, has already been paid by the appellant on 17 July,
2026.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
5. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the record, are as
follows:
th
5.1. Pursuant to a written complaint dated 13 April, 2021, by one Sanjeev
Gupta, i.e., the complainant, the instant case was registered by the, Anti-
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 2 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

Corruption Branch (“ACB”), Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”), New
Delhi, under Section 7A of the PC Act and 120B of the IPC, against Dilip
Kumar, Amit Negi and unknown public servants.
5.2. The complainant, in the said complaint, alleged that he had been
allotted an industrial plot bearing no. B-414, Bhorgarh Industrial Area,
Bawana Phase – II, Delhi , admeasuring 150 square meters, by the Relocation
Department of the Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd, New Delhi (“DSIIDC”).
5.3. He further stated that the possession of the said plot had already been
delivered to him, however, for the purpose of execution of a lease deed in
rd
regard thereto, he had applied to the DSIIDC on 23 February, 2021, but no
action was taken on his application. Further, the middlemen, i.e., Chaturbhuj
@ Pappu and Dilip Kumar demanded Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five
Thousand only) from the complainant to get the said lease deed executed
through the dealing clerk, i.e., the appellant.
5.4. For the purposes of verification of the said complaint, the complaint
was assigned to a verification officer, i.e., Sub Inspector (“SI”) Suresh
Chandra Kushwah. The complainant, one SI Nitin Kumar and one
independent witness, i.e., Chandan Kumar Mishra, who was posted as an
ASO, Doordarshan, Delhi, also joined the verification team.
th
5.5. The verification of the complaint was conducted on 13 April, 2021,
wherein, the complainant, along with the independent witness, was sent to the
office of DSIIDC, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj, New Delhi, with a Digital Voice
Recorder (“DVR”) with recording on.
5.6. The memory card of the DVR was as Q1 during the investigation, and
was exhibited as PW2/Article 5, before the Trial Court. Further, the transcript
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 3 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

of the said conversation was exhibited as Ex PW2/H (Colly.) .
5.7. The complainant, corroborated by the independent witness, after his
return from the DSIIDC office, stated that he contacted Dilip Kumar, who
rd
asked him to meet at the tea-stall on the 3 (third) floor of the building with
04 (four) sets of documents. Dilip Kumar informed the complainant that his
file was pending with the appellant and out of the total bribe, Rs. 4,000/-
(Rupees Four Thousand only) shall be paid to the appellant. Amit Negi had
also joined the conversation and supported the demand for bribe. Dilip Kumar
had made a call to the appellant, who did not pick up the call, but came to the
tea stall and assured that the lease would be executed by the next week.
5.8. Amit Negi negotiated and finalized the bribe amount at Rs. 20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand only), and asked the complainant to pay the part
bribe of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to Dilip Kumar in Bawana,
Delhi, and remaining amount at the time of execution of the lease deed.
th
5.9. On 15 April, 2021, a trap was laid by the Trap Laying Officer, i.e.,
Inspector Shyam Rai, along with independent witnesses Chandan Kumar
Mishra and Bablu Kumar, i.e., Junior Engineer, Public Works Department
(“PWD”), Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi.
5.10. Dilip Kumar was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) as bribe at the complainant’s office located at F-149,
Prashant Vihar, Delhi . The currency notes which were handed over to Dilip
Kumar by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder,
consequently, the hand washes of Dilip Kumar were taken in two bottles of
sodium carbonate solution, which reacted with the phenolphthalein powder
on the hands of Dilip Kumar, to turn pink.
5.11. Subsequently, both Chaturbhuj @ Pappu and Amit Negi were also
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 4 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

apprehended by the CBI team.
5.12. It is the case of the prosecution that Amit Negi, upon being
apprehended, on instructions of the Trap Laying Officer, placed a WhatsApp
call to the appellant, wherein, the appellant confirmed about the approval of
the complainant’s file and explicitly directed Amit Negi to not disclose the
said approval to retain leverage for the remaining money.
5.13. It is also the prosecution’s case that, subsequently, the appellant was
also brought to the CBI office, however, he did not give any satisfactory
th
answers. The appellant was formally arrested on 16 April, 2021.
th
5.14. Upon completion of investigation, a Chargesheet dated 28 October,
2021 was filed before the Trial Court. The Trial Court took cognizance and
framed charges against the appellant under Section 7 of the PC Act and 120B
of the IPC read with Section 7 of the PC Act. Subsequently, the appellant was
convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
6. Before this Court, the appellant has raised the following contentions:
6.1. The conviction of the appellant does not rest upon any direct evidence
or recovery, but only upon inference. Furthermore, the appeal raises
substantial and arguable questions.
6.2. Admittedly, the investigation against the appellant was initiated
without the mandatory prior approval/sanction under Section 17A of the PC
Act. Further, the proviso to Section 17A of the PC Act for ‘on the spot’ arrest
has no application in the present case as neither the appellant was caught red-
handed nor has anything been recovered from him.
6.3. The twin conditions of Section 7 of the PC Act, i.e., demand and
acceptance, are not met in the instant case. The verification officer has
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 5 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

admitted that there was no utterance of any demand of money by the appellant
and there is no conversation directing the bribe money to him.
6.4. The appellant has neither been named in the Verification Report nor in
the FIR. His role was merely recommended to be ‘looked into during
investigation’.
6.5. The case of the prosecution rests on recorded electronic conversations,
the admissibility of which is in issue, as neither any Certificate under Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”) nor any hash-value
Certificate has been produced for the said seized records.
6.6. The sentence imposed on the appellant is a fixed term for 04 (four)
years, and not imprisonment for life, and henceforth, in view of the decisions
of the Supreme Court, the suspension of sentence is to be considered liberally,
unless there are exceptional circumstances.
6.7. The relevant considerations for the grant of suspension of sentence,
i.e., (i) nature of offence, (ii) manner in which the occurrence took place, and
(iii) whether concession of bail granted earlier was misused in any manner,
are met in the present case.
th
6.8. The appellant was released on bail on 30 April, 2022, by the Trail
Court, and has remained on bail throughout the entire trial until his conviction
th
on 06 July, 2026, and there are no allegations of the misuse of bail.
6.9. The Supreme Court has granted bail on materially similar
considerations, i.e., a 04 (four) year fixed term sentence and an accused, who
was on bail throughout the trial, as in the present case.
6.10. The appeal is listed in the category of regulars and based on the year
of its seniority, it is not likely to be taken up and finally heard in the near
future, and the appeal would be rendered infructuous in view of passage of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 6 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

time and substantial sentence being served by the appellant.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE:
7. The case put forth by the prosecution is as follows:
7.1. The appellant has failed to make out any exceptional or compelling
ground warranting suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
7.2. The impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is based on
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and does
not disclose any apparent infirmity.
7.3. The offence of the appellant is of such a nature, if the suspension of
sentence is considered unless justified by compelling circumstances, the same
may adversely affect the public confidence in the administration of justice.
7.4. Any leniency shown to the appellant, being a public servant, would be
contrary to the message of deterrence to persons, and hence, undermine public
confidence in the efficacy of law.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
8. I have heard learned counsels for both the parties and have perused the
record.
9. At the outset, this Court notes that the sentence imposed upon the
appellant is fixed term of 04 (four) years. The Supreme Court has held, in
categorical terms, that where a convict is sentenced to a fixed term and files
an appeal, suspension of sentence is to be considered liberally unless there are
exceptional circumstances. Thus, in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde
Gosai and Others Versus State of Gujrat, (1999) 4 SCC 421 , Supreme Court
has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 7 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right,
suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court
liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course,
if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence
it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life
imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could
be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a
limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be
made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion
for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases.
Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise
in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that
due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of
expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in
the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal
right, meaningful and effective. Of course, appellate courts can
impose similar conditions when bail is granted.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Likewise, in the case of Suresh Kumar and Others Versus State (NCT
of Delhi), (2001) 10 SCC 338 , it was held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
5. This Court has stated in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State
of Gujarat [(1999) 4 SCC 421 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 553] : (SCC p.
422, para 3)
“3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of
sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory
right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the
appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional
circumstances.”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. In the facts of the present case, it is to be noted that no recovery has
rd
been made from the appellant. The office of the appellant was on the 03
(third) floor of the building. The middleman called the appellant on the phone;
however, he did not answer the same. Later, when the appellant went to the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 8 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

rd
tea stall on the 03 (third) floor of the building, where his office was also
situated, the middleman was standing therein at the tea stall. When the
middleman asked to get the work of the complainant done, the appellant
simply nodded his head. It is nobody’s case that the appellant asked for any
money from the complainant or the middleman.
12. In this regard, cross-examination of PW2 (complainant) may be
referred, wherein the complainant has testified that he never informed the
appellant herein that he was paying any amount on his behalf to anybody. He
further confirmed that the tea stall on the third floor was the only tea stall in
the whole building. The complainant further testified during his examination
that he had engaged the middleman for enquiring about the status of the lease
as well as execution of the same. He further testified that no demand for
money was made in the presence of the appellant.
13. The deposition of PW5 , a shadow witness of the CBI also confirms the
fact that no demand for money was made by the appellant. He also testifies
during his deposition that the appellant did not talk to the middleman, Dilip
th
Kumar, in his presence, over the mobile phone on 13 April, 2021. The said
witness has categorically deposed that the appellant did not demand any
money from any person.
14. PW15 , i.e., the Investigating Officer (“IO”) has testified, in categorical
terms, that in the Verification Report attached with the FIR, nothing was
mentioned about the appellant herein. He has further testified during his
examination that no recovery was made from the appellant.
15. In this regard, it would be fruitful to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of B. Jayaraj Versus State of Andhra Pradesh,
(2014) 13 SCC 55 , wherein, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 9 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

“xxx xxx xxx
7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a
settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine
qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of
currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7
unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused
voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The
above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments
of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the
decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 15 SCC 1 :
(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [(2009) 3
SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] .
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. Thus, a prima facie case has been made out by the appellant.
17. Furthermore, it is also to be noted that the appeal is of the year 2026
and is not likely to be taken up and finally heard in the near future. Where the
chance of the appeal being heard in the near future is remote, that is a valid
consideration in favour of releasing the appellant on bail during the pendency
of the appeal. To compel the appellant to serve a substantial part of his four-
year sentence before his appeal is even heard, would render the right of appeal
illusory. Reference is this regard is made to the judgment in the Case of Sunil
Kumar Versus Vipin Kumar, (2014) 8 SCC 868 , wherein, it has been held as
follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
13. We have heard the rival legal contentions raised by both the
parties. We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly
applied its discretionary power under Section 389 CrPC to
enlarge the respondents on bail. Firstly, both the criminal appeal
and criminal revision filed by both the parties are pending before
the High Court which means that the convictions of the
respondents are not confirmed by the appellate court. Secondly,
it is an admitted fact that the respondents had been granted bail
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 10 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

earlier and they did not misuse the liberty . Also, the respondents
had conceded to the occurrence of the incident though with a
different version.

14. We are of the opinion that the High Court has taken into
consideration all the relevant facts including the fact that the
chance of the appeal being heard in the near future is extremely
remote, hence, the High Court has released the respondents on
bail on the basis of sound legal reasoning. We do not wish to
interfere with the decision of the High Court at this stage. The
appeal is dismissed accordingly.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
th
18. It is also to be noted that the appellant was released on bail on 30
April, 2021, and has remained on bail throughout the entire trial until his
th
conviction on 06 July, 2026. There is no allegation that the appellant has
misused the concession of bail in any manner.
19. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present
case, this Court deems it fit to suspend the sentence of the appellant during
the pendency of the appeal.
20. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and it is directed that
th
the sentence awarded to the appellant vide order on sentence dated 16 July,
2026, passed by the Trial Court in CBI 48/2021 , shall remain suspended
pending disposal of the present appeal.
21. The appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with one surety
of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail
Superintendent, and subject to the following conditions:
I. The appellant shall provide his mobile number(s) to the IO concerned,
which shall be kept in a working condition at all times and shall not be
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 11 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49

switched off.
II. The appellant shall not change his mobile number(s) without prior
intimation to the IO concerned during the period of suspension of
sentence.
III. The appellant shall furnish his permanent address to the IO, within 02
(two) weeks of his release. In case he changes his address, he will
inform the IO concerned as well as this Court.
IV. The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when the appeal is
taken up for hearing.
V. The appellant shall not leave the country without the permission of this
Court.
22. It is clarified that any observations made herein are purely for the
purposes of deciding the question of suspension of sentence and shall not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
23. The present application is disposed of in the above terms.
24. A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information and necessary compliance.

MINI PUSHKARNA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 04, 2026/ Ak/SK


Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 691/2026 Page 12 of 12
Digitally Signed By:...
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:04:49