Eight years, nine months and 14 days in custody, against a maximum sentence of seven years: that arithmetic is behind the Sukesh Chandrashekhar release ordered by a Delhi court in a 2017 corruption case.
New Delhi: Holding that the second proviso to Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory, the Special Court (PC Act) at Rouse Avenue Court Complex on October 28 directed that Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar be not detained during the pendency of trial in a 2017 Crime Branch case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and be released forthwith if not required in any other case [State v. Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar, Etc.].
The application, filed under Section 436A CrPC (Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) read with Article 21 of the Constitution, was allowed by Special Judge Vidya Prakash, Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-01.
A provision that leaves no discretion
The second proviso to Section 436A says no person shall be detained during investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the offence. On that proviso, the Court held:
“The use of word ‘shall’ would clearly show the intention of the legislature that this provision is mandatory in nature.”
Neither alleged nor shown by the prosecution, the Court found, was any delay attributable to the accused:
“Thus, the prosecution has failed to show that the case of applicant/accused would be covered by the explanation appended below S. 436A Cr.P.C. in any manner.”
Custody beyond the maximum sentence was an admitted position on record. The Court relied on Bhim Singh (2015), Hussainara Khatoon and Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (1994), and said the case had travelled beyond the stage contemplated in Bhim Singh, so the second proviso applied with greater force.
The custody on record
Delhi Police Crime Branch registered FIR No. 186/2017, and Chandrashekhar was arrested in it on October 24, 2017. Charges were framed on October 13, 2022 under Section 120B IPC read with Section 12 of the PC Act, and under Section 12 of the PC Act. As the order records, these offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years.
He had been granted bail under the first proviso to Section 436A on September 21, 2022, on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties, but he did not furnish surety bonds in this case as he was in custody in other cases. The nominal roll from the jail authorities showed custody of 8 years, 9 months and 14 days as on October 27, 2026, even after excluding periods of interim bail and parole.
What the prosecution urged
Assisted by ACP Ramesh Chander Lamba, the prosecution opposed the plea, pointing out that Chandrashekhar faces 29 criminal cases across several States, including cases under MCOCA. It cited the nature of the allegations and the modus operandi, and expressed apprehension that he could influence or intimidate witnesses. It also argued that, having not furnished sureties under the 2022 bail order, he should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.
The directions
The Court directed that Chandrashekhar “be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case”, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh, as undertaken, on or before the next date. The conditions of the 2022 order continue: he shall not contact or influence any witness, shall not commit similar offences, shall not leave the country without the Court’s permission and shall inform the Court of any change of address. The Court clarified that nothing in the order is an expression of opinion on the merits.
The allegations against Chandrashekhar remain to be tested at trial, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The order relates only to this case and does not by itself secure his release, as he remains an accused in other cases.
What the ceiling means for undertrials
Section 436A, now Section 479 BNSS, sets an outer limit on pre-trial detention. Once an undertrial has spent half the maximum sentence in custody, release on bond is the norm. Once custody reaches the full maximum, the second proviso forbids further detention altogether, with delay caused by the accused as the only exclusion.
As the order shows, neither the number of other cases an accused faces nor the gravity of the allegations can override this statutory ceiling in a given case. Those concerns may be addressed in the other cases, but they do not justify holding an undertrial beyond the maximum sentence for the offence being tried.
Case Title: State v. Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar, Etc. [I.A. No. 10/2026 in CC No. 26/2019, FIR No. 186/2017, PS Crime Branch; CNR DLCT11-000203-2019]
Court: Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-01 Vidya Prakash, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi
Date of Order: October 28, 2026