Supreme Court of India
RAHUL VS. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI on 27 October 2026
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 4398/2026
RAHUL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s)
(IA No. 260604/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 260602/2026 - GRANT OF BAIL)
Date : 27-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Appellant(s): Ms. E. R. Sumathy- 1584, AOR
Mr. Harsh, Adv.
Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G.
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal- 909, AOR
Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv.
Ms. Anamika Aggarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. The appeal has already been admitted. Today, matter is listed on the question of bail.
2. Appellant was tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS) (West) Delhi in Sessions Case No.47 of 2010 under Sections 376/377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).
Digitally signed by ABHINAV KUMAR Date: 2026.10.27 17:15:32 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
3. By the judgment and order dated 20.10.2011, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt to him, holding that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
4. Respondent-State
preferred
appeal
against acquittal before the High Court of Delhi (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter), which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2014. By the judgment and order dated 09.09.2022, the judgment of acquittal was reversed and the High Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (for short, ‘RI’) for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default stipulation.
5. Ms. E. R. Sumathy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that out of 10 years of RI, appellant has already undergone about 6 years of incarceration. That apart, appellant has a good case on merit as would be evident from the judgment of acquittal of the Trial Court.
6. Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, learned Addl. Solicitor General for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the judgment of the High Court is a well reasoned one. Of course, he admits that more than 50% of the sentence has been undergone by the appellant and, therefore, the Court may consider passing appropriate orders.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we suspend the sentence of the appellant and direct that he shall be released on bail on usual terms and conditions.
8. Appeal be listed for hearing in due course. (ABHINAV KUMAR) (CHETNA BALOONI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)