13-year delay in securing murder convict after appeal’s dismissal corrodes credibility: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has taken “serious note” of an “extraordinary delay” of 13 years in getting hold of a convict in a murder case even after the dismissal of his appeal, and said such episodes corrode the credibility of the criminal justice system.

A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the case showed a “serious systemic failure” in ensuring enforcement of judicial orders due to a lack of coordination amongst the trial court, the jail administration and police.

Asserting that there were deficiencies in the follow up required after conviction and the grant of bail, the court opined that there was a need to set up a mechanism to ensure that such incidents did not recur in the future and went on to pass several directions.

“This is one of those cases where the appellant continued to enjoy the fruit of liberty for a long period of 13 years despite his appeal against conviction having been dismissed by this court,” the bench said in an order dated January 27.

The appellant was convicted by the trial court in January 2009 for the offence of murder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

During the pendency of his appeal in the high court, his sentence was suspended for two months in December 2010, after which he did not surrender. His appeal was dismissed by the high court in 2012.

The court noted that according to the status report filed by the jail superintendent, the appellant was arrested on October 13, 2025, and then sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence.

“This court takes serious note of the extraordinary delay of about 13 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 police. Such an unusual delay portrays a serious systemic failure in ensuring enforcement of judicial orders. Such episodes corrode the credibility of the criminal justice system,” the court observed.

To prevent such episodes from happening again, the court directed that when an order granting interim bail or suspension of sentence is passed, the registry shall immediately communicate it to the trial court, the jail superintendent and the jurisdictional police station.

It further said that if the sentence is suspended for a specified period, the trial court, after accepting the bond, shall also fix and record the date of surrender.

It shall be the duty of the jail superintendent, the court added, to intimate the trial court whether the convict had surrendered on the expiry of his interim-bail period.

The court clarified that in case the convict fails 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 the convict is arrested and sent to prison.

For cases where the convict’s appeal is dismissed but he is on bail, or where his acquittal is set aside, the jail superintendent shall immediately pass the information on the convict’s surrender to the trial court and based on such report, the trial court shall take the requisite steps to ensure that the convict is sent to prison to serve the sentence.