Kundan Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

$~P-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 14.05.2026
Pronounced on:29.05.2026
Uploaded on: 29.05.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 244/2026
KUNDAN SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Ms.
Taiba Khan, Mr. Gopeshwar Singh
Chandel, Mr. Abdul Bari Khan,
Mr. Yashvardhan Mittal & Ms.
Alvina Rais Khan, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP-CBI with
Ms. Mishika Pandita & Mr.
Changez Khan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
J U D G M E N T
CRL.M.A. 11958/2026 ( for stay ) in CRL. REV. 244/2026
1. By way of CRL.M.A. 11958/2026, the petitioner seeks stay of a
judgment dated 28.03.2026, passed by the Sessions Court, by which he
has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 467/468 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport
Act, 1967 [“Passport Act”].
2. In the captioned revision petition, the petitioner has also challenged
the order on sentence dated 30.03.2026, passed by the Sessions Court, by
which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years,
alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for each of the offences under Sections
467 and 468 of IPC, and simple imprisonment of one year with fine of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 1 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

1
Rs.5,000/-, for the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act . By an
order dated 07.05.2026, the sentence was suspended during the pendency
of the revision petition.
3. In the impugned judgment, the Court found that the petitioner, who
was employed as an Upper Division Clerk at Passport Office, Ghaziabad,
forged two passports, in conspiracy with another accused, as follows:
a. Passport No. A-5885047 was to be issued in the name of Prem
Chand Singh, but was instead issued in the fictious name of Naram
Bhai Verma;
b. Passport No. A-5885406 was to be issued in the name of
Bhupender Singh, but was instead issued in the fictious name of
Narang Joshi.
4. On the merits of the revision petition, Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan,
learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was
acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2025, but was
convicted in appeal, by the Sessions Court on 28.03.2026. Mr. Khan
submitted that the Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case that the
petitioner had originally filled the correct names in the passport forms,
but subsequently changed them to reflect the fictitious name mentioned
hereinabove. While these findings have not been disturbed by the
Appellate Court, he submitted that the case has been re-constructed, to
the extent of holding that the petitioner had, at the first stage itself, filled
the fictitious names in the passport forms. Mr. Khan argued that such re-
imagination of the prosecution narrative at the appellate stage, itself
1
By order dated 23.04.2026, the petitioner was granted interim bail for one week to attend the last rites
of his father, which was subsequently extended by another week vide order dated 28.04.2026.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 2 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

provides a prima facie ground for stay of conviction. He also submitted
that the Appellate Court has erred in interfering in the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. Mr. Khan cited the judgment of the
2
Supreme Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , to contend that an
acquittal should not be lightly disturbed in appeal. He further submitted
that the proceedings were vitiated, as the handwriting specimen of the
petitioner was taken contrary to law, for which purpose he cited the
3
decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ram Babu Mishra .
5. Mr. Khan urged this Court to suspend the conviction itself, having
regard to the consequences upon the petitioner’s service status. It was
submitted that the petitioner continues to be in government service, but is
scheduled to retire on superannuation in the year 2027. He argued that, in
the event the petitioner is dismissed from service on account of the
impugned conviction, and the revision is not heard prior to his date of
retirement, he would be unable to reap the benefits of service, even if the
petition is ultimately allowed. Mr. Khan relied upon the decisions of the
4
Supreme Court in Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Afjal Ansari
5
v. State of U.P. , in support of this contention.
6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI,
opposed the application, relying upon the gravity of the offences, of
which the petitioner has been convicted. While the arguments on the
merits of the conviction may be raised at the final hearing of the petition,
Mr. Kumar submitted that the petitioner has failed to disclose any prima
2
(2007) 4 SCC 415 [hereinafter, “ Chandrappa ”].
3
(1980) 2 SCC 343 [hereinafter, “ Ram Babu Mishra ”].
4
(2007) 2 SCC 574 [hereinafter, “ Navjot Singh Sidhu ”].
5
(2024) 2 SCC 187 [hereinafter, “Afjal Ansari”].
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 3 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

facie ground for this Court to grant the extraordinary relief of stay on
conviction. He submitted that the petitioner, being a government servant
working at the Passport Office, has been convicted of misusing passport
booklets, which were entrusted to him for filling in the details of
legitimate applicants. Instead, he has been found to have made false and
fabricated entries in the names of fictitious individuals, which can have
consequences for national security, administration of justice, and other
serious repercussions.
7. On the question of the alleged irreversible consequences, it was
Mr. Kumar’s submission that loss of government service has been held
not to constitute “ irreversible consequence ”, which would justify a stay
of conviction. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of
6
Maharashtra v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar in this connection. Mr.
Kumar also argued that the presumption of innocence which might weigh
with the court during the pendency of trial, does not inure to the benefit
of an individual once convicted, as held by the Supreme Court in Kishori
7
Lal v. Rupa & Ors. .
8. The general principles governing applications for stay of
conviction have been examined by the Supreme Court in several cases,
8
and summarized in Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali . While
recognizing that the Appellate Court is vested with the power to stay
conviction in certain circumstances, as held in Rama Narang v. Ramesh
9
Narang , the Court cautioned as follows:
6
(2012) 12 SCC 384 [hereinafter, “ Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar ”].
7
(2004) 7 SCC 638
8
(2007) 1 SCC 673 [hereinafter, “ Ravikant S. Patil ”].
9
(1995) 2 SCC 513 [hereinafter, “ Rama Narang ”].
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 4 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

“ 14. This Court, however, clarified that the person seeking stay of
conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate court
to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed ; and
that unless the attention of the court to the specific consequences that are
likely to fall upon conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an
order of stay of conviction. In fact, if such specific consequences are not
brought to its notice, the court cannot be expected to grant stay of
conviction or assign reasons relevant for staying the conviction itself,
instead of merely suspending the execution of the sentence. In that case,
it was found on facts that the appellant therein had not specified the
disqualification he was likely to incur under Section 267 of the
Companies Act, if his conviction was not stayed. Therefore, this Court
refused to infer that the High Court had applied its mind to this specific
aspect of the matter and had thereafter granted stay of conviction or the
operation of the impugned judgment. Consequently, the order of stay was
not construed as a stay of conviction.
15. It deserves to be clarified that an order granting stay of conviction is
not the rule but is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases
depending upon the facts of a case. Where the execution of the sentence
is stayed, the conviction continues to operate. But where the conviction
itself is stayed, the effect is that the conviction will not be operative from
the date of stay. An order of stay, of course, does not render the
conviction non-existent, but only non-operative. Be that as it may. Insofar
as the present case is concerned, an application was filed specifically
seeking stay of the order of conviction specifying the consequences if
conviction was not stayed, that is, the appellant would incur
disqualification to contest the election. The High Court after considering
the special reason, granted the order staying the conviction. As the
conviction itself is stayed in contrast to a stay of execution of the
sentence, it is not possible to accept the contention of the respondent that
the disqualification arising out of conviction continues to operate even
after stay of conviction.
xxx xxx xxx
10
16.3. In K.C. Sareen v. CBI it was held that though the power to
suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not
alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its exercise should be limited to
very exceptional cases . It was further held that merely because the
convicted person files an appeal to challenge his conviction, the court
should not suspend the operation of the conviction and the court has a
duty to look at all aspects including the ramifications of keeping such
conviction in abeyance. The Bench also noted that the evil of corruption
10
(2001) 6 SCC 584 [hereinafter, “K.C. Sareen”].
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 5 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

has reached a monstrous dimension. While declining the prayer of the
appellant for grant of an order of stay of conviction, the Bench observed
that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant,
the appellate court should not suspend the order of conviction during the
pendency of the appeal, even if the sentence of imprisonment is
suspended. The Bench further observed that it would be a sublime public
policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the
conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in
abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision . These observations
would equally apply when a prayer for stay of order of conviction is
made so as to remove the disability to contest an election except, as
already noted, in a very exceptional and rare case.
16.4. Lastly, reference may also be made to the decision of this Court
11
in State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan . In the said case, relying on K.C.
Sareen it was reiterated that only in exceptional cases, the court should
exercise the power of stay of conviction . Since the High Court in the
said case had not pointed out any exceptional fact or looked into the
ramification of keeping such conviction in abeyance, the order of the
High Court staying the conviction was set aside. In the cited case
12
of Union of India v. Atar Singh it was noted that the High Court had
mechanically passed the order by suspending the conviction and the
discretion ought not to have been exercised by the High Court by passing
such an order suspending the conviction.
16.5. All these decisions, while recognising the power to stay
conviction, have cautioned and clarified that such power should be
exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay the
13
conviction, would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences . ”
9. The position, particularly with regard to the peril of loss of
employment, has also been considered in the following judgments and
orders of the Supreme Court:
14
a. In State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Jaganathan , the accused, who was a
Police Inspector, was convicted under Sections 392/218/466 IPC
by concurrent judgments of the Magistrate’s Court and the
Sessions Court. The High Court, relying on Rama Narang ,
11
(2003) 12 SCC 432 [hereinafter, “Gajanan”].
12
(2003) 12 SCC 434 [hereinafter, “ Atar Singh ”].
13
Emphasis supplied.
14
(1996) 5 SCC 329 [hereinafter, “ A. Jaganathan ”].
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 6 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

suspended the conviction during the pendency of the revision
petition. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the High Court
erred in applying Rama Narang , as the consequences of the
conviction, such as withholding of stipend, can be restored, in the
event the revision petition is allowed. The Supreme Court also held
that the High Court did not consider the moral conduct of the
accused.
b. In K.C. Sareen , the accused, an officer of the Punjab National
Bank, was convicted under various offences, including Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [“PC Act”].
During the pendency of the appeal, the accused twice approached
the High Court seeking stay of conviction; however, both
applications were dismissed. The accused thereafter approached the
Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the High Court. The
Supreme Court held that the power to suspend a conviction must be
exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and that
Courts are required to consider all relevant aspects, including the
ramifications of keeping a conviction in abeyance. Specifically in
the context of convictions under the PC Act, the Supreme Court
observed that a public servant convicted on corruption charges
should not be granted stay of conviction during the pendency of the
appeal, and should continue to suffer the disability attached to such
conviction until the appeal or revision is finally decided.
c. In Atar Singh , the accused was convicted under Section 409 IPC
and Section 13 of PC Act. On appeal, the High Court suspended
the conviction during the pendency of the appeal on the ground that
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 7 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

non-suspension of conviction, would lead to removal of
government employee from service. The Supreme Court, however,
reversed the order, holding inter alia that discretion ought not to
have been exercised on the ground of removal from government
service alone.
d. In Gajanan , the accused was convicted under Section 7 of the PC
Act by the Special Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the
High Court stayed the conviction. The Supreme Court, however,
set aside the order staying the conviction, observing that the High
Court had failed to identify any exceptional circumstances
warranting such relief, and had also not considered the serious
ramifications of keeping such a conviction in abeyance.
e. In Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar , the accused, who was a
Superintendent of Central Excise, was convicted under Sections
13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. The High Court suspended
the conviction during the pendency of the appeal. The Supreme
Court, after considering the aforesaid judgments, including Rama
Narang, A. Jaganathan, K.C. Sareen, Gajanan, Ravikant S. Patil,
and Navjot Singh Sidhu , reiterated that stay of conviction must be
an exceptional order, and is to be granted with great
circumspection and caution, after analysis of the facts and
circumstances of the case, including the “evil that is likely to
befall” the convicted individual. The Supreme Court ultimately set
aside the order, and specifically with regard to the argument on
loss of employment, observed that it was not a case where the
damage, once caused, could not be undone. It was held that, in the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 8 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

event the accused ultimately succeeded in appeal, he would be
entitled to claim all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
10. As against these judgments, Mr. Khan submitted that the Supreme
Court, in both Navjot Singh Sidhu and Afzal Ansari, suspended the
conviction of the appellants on the ground of irreparable consequences.
11. In Navjot Singh Sidhu , the appellant sought a stay on the ground
that he was a sitting Member of Parliament, but would incur a
disqualification for contesting an election on account of conviction.
Although the Court declined to adjudicate upon the question as to the
effect of the order upon the appellant’s disqualification, it suspended the
conviction and sentence, having regard to various prima facie factors in
his favour.
12. In Afzal Ansari also, the appellant was an elected representative.
The Court held that failure to suspend the conviction would deprive the
appellant’s constituency of representation in the legislature, and also
deprive him of his ability to represent his constituents. Taking such legal
position into account, the Court suspended the appellant’s conviction,
subject to conditions.
13. Applying these principles to the present case, while the merits of
the appellant’s conviction remain to be adjudicated, I am of the view that
the facts of the present case are closer to the judgments in A. Jaganathan,
Atar Singh, K.C. Sareen, Gajanan, Ravikant S. Patil , and Balakrishna
Dattatrya Kumbhar . The present case does not involve legislative
representation of a constituency or the right of any individual to serve in
the legislature. These are the consequences identified in Afzal Ansari, on
the basis of which stay of conviction was granted. In the case of a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 9 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56

government employee, where the argument is based upon the possible
loss of employment consequent upon the conviction, the line of
judgments cited above, however provide direct authority that such a
consequence is not determinative, as necessary financial recompense can
be granted if the appellant eventually succeeds in appeal or revision.
14. I am also not inclined to accept Mr. Khan’s submission that the
position is different in the present case, because the petitioner is not
convicted of an offence under the PC Act. The allegation against him
include misuse and forgery of passport booklets, which were entrusted to
him as a public official. The consequences of such an act are indeed
serious and do not warrant a more lenient treatment than an allegation of
corruption.
15. Mr. Khan’s argument with regard to the limited residual service of
petitioner also does not commend to me. Even if he is right in saying that
the petitioner would have superannuated before the revision petition is
decided, if he succeeds in revision petition, he would still be entitled to
the legal and financial consequences thereof, in accordance with law.
16. In view of the above discussion, the application is dismissed.
17. It is however, clarified that the observations made in this judgment
are for the purposes of adjudicating the present application and the
revision petition will be decided on its own merits.
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026
List on the date already fixed, i.e. 02.09.2026.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 29, 2026/ ‘pv’/AD/
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 244/2026 Page 10 of 10
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:29.05.2026
19:15:56