A nod at a tea stall and no recovery: Delhi HC suspends four-year bribery sentence of a clerk
Justice Mini Pushkarna suspended the sentence of a DSIIDC dealing clerk convicted in a CBI trap case, noting that no money was recovered from him, no witness spoke of a demand by him and he had stayed on bail through the trial.
When a middleman asked him to get a complainant’s lease deed done, the clerk at the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation “simply nodded his head”, the Delhi High Court recorded on 4 November 2026. Nobody says he asked for money, and no money was found on him.
Chander Pal Singh is serving four years in jail for it. Justice Mini Pushkarna suspended that sentence, and ordered his release on bail, while his appeal against the conviction waits for a hearing.
The order decides only whether he should stay in jail meanwhile. The court said its observations are not a view on the merits of the appeal.
A conviction in July, jail the same day
On 6 July 2026 a Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) at Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi convicted Mr Singh in case CBI 48/2021. He was held guilty under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of that Act.
By the order on sentence of 16 July 2026, he got rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs 20,000 on each count, with one month of simple imprisonment in default. The two sentences run concurrently.
He was taken into custody on the day of conviction. He paid the fine of Rs 40,000 on 17 July, and then filed the application for suspension of sentence under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 389(1) of the old Code of Criminal Procedure.
The CBI trap and the tea stall
The case began with a complaint of 13 April 2021 by Sanjeev Gupta, who had been allotted a 150 square metre industrial plot at Bhorgarh Industrial Area, Bawana. He had possession, but his application of 23 February 2021 for a lease deed had gone nowhere.
The complainant said two middlemen, Chaturbhuj alias Pappu and Dilip Kumar, demanded Rs 25,000 to get the lease deed executed through the dealing clerk, Mr Singh. The amount was later settled at Rs 20,000, of which Rs 4,000 was said to be meant for the clerk.
On 13 April the complainant went to the DSIIDC office with a digital voice recorder switched on. Dilip Kumar called Mr Singh, who did not pick up.
Mr Singh then walked to the tea stall on the third floor, where Dilip Kumar and Amit Negi were. He assured them the lease would be executed the following week, according to the prosecution.
On 15 April the CBI laid a trap. Dilip Kumar was caught accepting Rs 10,000, treated with phenolphthalein powder, at the complainant’s office in Prashant Vihar. Mr Negi and Chaturbhuj were also apprehended.
The prosecution said Mr Negi, on the trap officer’s instructions, then phoned Mr Singh on WhatsApp. It claimed Mr Singh confirmed approval of the file and told him not to disclose it, to keep leverage for the balance. Mr Singh was arrested on 16 April 2021.
What the clerk argued
Ms Kaadambari Singh Puri, Senior Advocate, appeared for Mr Singh. She argued that the conviction rested on inference alone, with no direct evidence and no recovery. She said he was named neither in the FIR nor in the verification report, which only said his role should be looked into during investigation.
She submitted that demand and acceptance, the twin requirements of Section 7, were not met, and that the verification officer admitted no demand by Mr Singh. She also pointed to the lack of prior approval under Section 17A of the Act and of a Section 65B certificate for the recordings.
On suspension itself, she said the sentence was a fixed four-year term, not life, so the Supreme Court’s liberal approach applied. Mr Singh had been on bail from the trial court throughout, with no allegation of misuse. His appeal, listed among the regular matters, was unlikely to be heard soon.
What the CBI said
Mr Vikrant Pachnanda, Special Public Prosecutor, appeared for the CBI. He argued that there were no exceptional grounds for suspension, and that the conviction rested on a proper reading of the oral and documentary evidence.
He said leniency towards a public servant would weaken the message of deterrence and public confidence in the law.
The test for a fixed-term sentence
Justice Pushkarna began with the Supreme Court’s rule in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421. A convict given a fixed term who files an appeal can have the sentence suspended “liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances”.
That court also said that if a short sentence cannot be suspended, the appeal should be heard quickly, or the right of appeal becomes futile.
She noted that Suresh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 10 SCC 338, repeated the same principle. The sentence here is four years, a fixed term.
No recovery, no demand in his presence
The court went through the evidence the prosecution itself had led. No recovery was made from Mr Singh. His office was on the third floor, on which the only tea stall of the building also stood.
The middleman called him and he did not answer. When he came to the tea stall and the middleman asked him to do the complainant’s work, he nodded. The court said it is nobody’s case that he asked either man for money.
The complainant, as PW2, said he never told Mr Singh that he was paying anyone on his behalf, and that no demand was made in his presence. PW5, the CBI’s shadow witness, said the same and added that Mr Singh did not talk to Dilip Kumar on the phone in his presence on 13 April 2021.
PW15, the investigating officer, confirmed that the verification report attached to the FIR said nothing about Mr Singh and that nothing was recovered from him.
Bribery needs a demand
The court turned to B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55. There the Supreme Court held that demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non of an offence under Section 7, and that mere recovery of notes cannot make the offence out.
On that footing Justice Pushkarna held, in a single line:
“a prima facie case has been made out by the appellant” (para 16)
She did not rule on the other grounds raised, including Section 17A and the Section 65B certificate, which are left for the appeal.
A 2026 appeal and a clean bail record
The court then took up delay. The appeal is of 2026 and not likely to be taken up and finally heard in the near future. Making Mr Singh serve a substantial part of four years before it is heard would make the right of appeal illusory, the court said.
It relied on Sunil Kumar v. Vipin Kumar, (2014) 8 SCC 868, where the Supreme Court upheld bail pending appeal because the appeal was unlikely to be heard soon and the accused had not misused earlier bail. Mr Singh, the court noted, had been on bail through the whole trial, with no allegation of misuse.
Order
The application is allowed. The sentence of 16 July 2026 in CBI 48/2021 stays suspended until the appeal is decided. Mr Singh is to be released on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
He must give the investigating officer his mobile number, keep it on at all times and not change it without telling the officer. He must give his permanent address within two weeks of release and report any change to the officer and the court.
He must appear when the appeal is heard and may not leave the country without the court’s permission. A copy of the order goes to the Jail Superintendent.