Delhi High Court - Orders
Saroj vs State (Nct Of Delhi) Through Sho on 15 January, 2026
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~8 & 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 859/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1308/2026
SAROJ .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr.
Adv, with Mr Praveen Gaur,
Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav,
Advocate and SI Akash Kumar,
PS Bhajanpura.
+ CRL.A. 878/2024
BHARAT KUMAR ROY .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Supriya Juneja, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Mr. Akhil
Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav,
Advocate and SI Akash Kumar,
PS Bhajanpura.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
ORDER
% 15.01.2026 CRL. M. (BAIL) 2394/2025 in CRL. A. 859/2024 & CRL. M. (BAIL) 2505/2025 in CRL. A. 878/2024
1. The present applications have been filed under Section 430 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ["BNSS"], seeking suspension of sentence and release of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:37:01 appellants on bail during the pendency of criminal appeal.
2. The captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants seeking quashing/setting aside of the Judgment of Conviction dated 20.04.2024 and Order on Sentence dated 16.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, North-East District, Karkardooma Court ["Trial Court"] in FIR No. 149/2014, P.S. Bhajanpura, under Sections 364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 364A/34 IPC and have been sentenced with Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.
3. Since both the appeals assail the same judgment, both the applications are being disposed of together by this common order.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03rd February, 2014, the minor son of the complainant, aged about 14 years, went to the market in the evening at about 6.00 pm, but did not return home. The complainant received a ransom call of Rs. 30 lakhs from the appellants at around 9:40 pm for the release of his son. On the basis of the complaint made by the father, FIR No. 149/2014 was registered under Section 364A/34 IPC at P.S. Bhajanpura. While the investigation was pending and the search was being made, the victim escaped from the place of confinement and reached the house of the grandmother of his cousin. His statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Cr.P.C"] and on his pointing out, one muffler, cello tape, two pieces of black wires, two plastic bottles and one plastic rope were recovered and seized from the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:37:01 place of confinement. Both the appellants were then arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against them under Section 364A/34 IPC.
5. The learned counsels for the appellants submit that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court suffers from grave infirmities and there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the manner of kidnapping, place of confinement and circumstances under which the victim allegedly escaped. They submit that it was not a case of kidnapping but was just a prank. The victim himself left his house to meet his friend Ravi and he along with Ravi, stayed in the rickshaw garage during the night and the next day, victim left for his house on the assurance of his father to purchase a Scooty for him.
6. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation in a proper manner, inasmuch as, no voice sample was collected and the statement of the landlord of the property where the victim was allegedly confined, was not recorded. No ransom amount has been recovered. The CDRs have not been duly proved on record.
7. It has been contended that the appellant Bharat has undergone about 2 years and 9 months of incarceration, while appellant Saroj has undergone about 2 years and 3 months of incarceration. Relying on the nominal roll of the appellants, it is further stated that both the appellants have maintained good conduct in jail and have no past criminal antecedents. They belong to poor strata of society and are the sole bread earner of their family.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:37:01
8. It is also argued that the appellants have a good case on merits. The hearing of the appeals is not likely to conclude in near future and therefore the applicants would suffer further incarceration if their sentence is not suspended. It is submitted that the appellants are willing to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court, including furnishing reliable sureties.
9. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the applications, submitting that the appeals are sans merit. He submits that the testimony of the victim is straight-forward and cogent. At his instance, a muffler, cello tape, two pieces of wires, two plastic bottles and rope were recovered and seized from the place of confinement and if it was a case of kidnapping and not just a prank; there is no reason why the victim would have deposed falsely against the appellants. He submits that the appellants stand convicted for the serious offence of kidnapping of a minor child for ransom and have been sentenced for Life Imprisonment and their period of incarceration is not very long and is just a minute fraction of the total sentence and therefore, considering the gravity of offence, the present applications are liable to be dismissed.
10. It is trite that suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C (now, section 430, BNSS) is not a matter of right. The nature, gravity and impact of the offence on the victim and society are vital considerations. The Supreme Court in Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 842), held that sentence cannot be suspended merely on the ground of incarceration or delay in appeal process, but the same has to be decided on its own merits.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:37:01
11. The learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment, has recorded detailed findings after appreciation of evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to undertake re-appreciation of evidence or examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the Trial Court in detail, as any observation at this stage may prejudice the appellants. The only consideration before this Court at this stage is as to whether the appellants have made out any ground for suspension or not. The issues regarding non-recovery of the ransom amount or not taking of the voice samples are the matters to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeals.
12. The argument of good conduct in jail and absence of criminal antecedents cannot outweigh the seriousness of the offence committed by the appellants and do not persuade us to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants.
13. Having been convicted, the presumption of innocence is no more available to the appellants. No exceptional or compelling circumstances have been brought to the fore that would warrant suspension of sentence at this stage. The mere fact that the appeals are pending or that appellants are poor persons and have to take care of their family, by itself, does not constitute a ground for grant of suspension, particularly in view of the grave nature of the offence.
14. In view of the foregoing and considering the seriousness of the offence and the overall facts and evidence, we do not deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the appellants at this stage.
15. It is clarified that any observations made herein are purely for This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:37:01 the purposes of deciding the question of suspension of sentence and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
16. Both the applications are accordingly dismissed.
17. Copy of the order be sent to the appellants through Superintendent Jail for information.
CRL.A. 859/2024 and CRL.A. 878/2024
18. List in due course.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JANUARY 15, 2026/RM/AK/Yg This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 20:37:01