The Delhi High Court strongly criticised a 13-year delay in arresting a murder convict whose appeal was dismissed in 2012, calling it a “serious systemic failure”. The Court warned that such lapses damage the credibility of the criminal justice system and issued strict directions to prevent similar failures.
The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised a shocking delay of 13 years in taking a murder convict into custody even after his appeal had been dismissed, calling it a “serious systemic failure” that harms public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court also issued a set of strict directions to ensure such lapses do not happen again in future.
The case relates to a man who was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2009. While his appeal against conviction was pending before the Delhi High Court, he was granted interim bail in December 2010 for a period of two months.
However, after the bail period ended, the convict did not surrender before the authorities. Despite this, no immediate steps were taken to arrest him.
In 2012, the Delhi High Court dismissed his criminal appeal, confirming his life sentence. Even after this final decision, the convict continued to remain absconding. Shockingly, it was only on October 13, 2025—nearly 13 years later—that the police finally arrested him and sent him to prison to serve the remaining part of his sentence.
Taking serious note of this extraordinary delay, a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja passed an order dated January 27, expressing strong concern over the failure of authorities to enforce judicial orders. The Court observed:
“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 Bench further noted that due to poor follow-up and lack of coordination between various authorities, the convict had effectively remained free for more than a decade. The Court remarked that the appellant had “continued to enjoy the fruit of liberty” for over 13 years despite his conviction and dismissal of appeal.
To prevent such serious failures in the future, the Delhi High Court laid down a detailed framework clearly defining the responsibilities of different authorities involved in bail and post-conviction matters.
The Court directed that whenever an order granting interim bail or suspending a sentence is passed, the High Court Registry must immediately communicate the order to the concerned trial court, jail superintendent, and the local police station to ensure proper follow-up.
It further directed that if a sentence is suspended for a limited period, the trial court must clearly record the exact date on which the convict is required to surrender after the bail bond is accepted.
The Court assigned a specific role to the jail superintendent, stating that it shall be the duty of the jail superintendent to inform the trial court whether the convict has surrendered on the due date or not.
The Bench also clarified that if a convict fails to surrender within time and there is no extension of bail or suspension of sentence, the trial court must immediately initiate appropriate legal proceedings to ensure the arrest of the convict and his return to prison.
In cases where a convict is on bail and his appeal is dismissed, or where an acquittal is overturned by a higher court, the jail superintendent must inform the trial court about the surrender status of the convict. The trial court must then take prompt steps to enforce the sentence without delay.
The Delhi High Court’s strong observations and directions act as a serious warning to authorities about the importance of coordination, accountability, and timely enforcement of court orders. The Court made it clear that failures of this nature weaken the rule of law and damage public trust in the justice delivery system.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Murder
