Wednesday, Oct 05, 2022

Delhi High Court suspends judge for allowing undertrial to remain on long custody parole

Virender Kumar Goyal, who was posted at Tis Hazari courts, was suspended, four days before his retirement.

Delhi High Court, Delhi High Court suspends judge, Election Commission bribery case, AIADMK bribery case, T T V Dhinakaran, indian express Based on preliminary inquiry, then District Judge, commercial court, Virender Kumar Goyal, who was posted at Tis Hazari courts, was suspended, four days before his retirement on January 31. (File Photo)

The Delhi High Court has suspended a trial court judge who allowed a man facing multiple trials in connection with the Election Commission bribery case, allegedly involving former AIADMK faction leader T T V Dhinakaran, to remain on custody parole for more than five months.

Based on preliminary inquiry, then District Judge, commercial court, Virender Kumar Goyal, who was posted at Tis Hazari courts, was suspended, four days before his retirement on January 31.

The information was shared on Monday by a bench headed by Justice Manmohan during hearing of a criminal reference sent to it by Special CBI Judge Kiran Bansal.

The HC had also recommended action against the judicial officer for his “conduct”.

Subscriber Only Stories
UPSC Key-October 5, 2022: Why you should read ‘Animal Adoption Scheme’ or...Premium
Telangana plot accused had twice tried to join terror outfits abroad, sto...Premium
Split on method to name new Supreme Court judges, CJI sends 2nd note to C...Premium
MNREGA worker breaks national record in men’s 35km race walkPremium

A formal suspension order was passed against Goyal after a full court of the High Court took its decision on January 27. A three-member vigilance committee, comprising three judges, has been constituted to further probe Goyal’s role, a source close to the High Court Chief Justice’s Secretariat said.

Goyal has been suspended under appropriate rules of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules and All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Goyal has also sent representation to the High Court on January 17 against inquiry on him, which is pending consideration.


In the reference from the trial court, the HC was asked to decide questions such as in case custody parole application is moved to only one of the courts concerned, whether any permission is required from the other courts concerned before sending the undertrial on custody parole.

The accused, Sukesh Chandrashekar, is facing trial in three different cases before three different courts.

While dealing with this, the bench had also ordered an inquiry against erring Delhi Police and Tihar Jail officials and recommended appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against the defaulters.


Standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra and advocate Chaitanya Gosain, representing Delhi Police, told the court that “despite strong opposition by the State, the accused was able to obtain custody parole”, which was repeatedly extended to “suit his ends”.

DCP Rajesh Deo filed the report, which, it is learnt, stated that during the inquiry against police officials concerned, “no act of omission or collusion of staff of Crime Branch or 3rd Battalion, with the accused, Sukesh, in his availing of custody parole from the court could be found”.

The inquiry report against the erring Tihar Jail official is awaited.

The bench said this should be filed in two weeks.

It is learnt that the police report has stated that the “factum of strong opposition by the investigating officer to granting extension of custody parole by the Hon’ble court is adequately reflected in the order of the Hon’ble court of Sh Virender Kumar Goyal…”.


Sukesh, an alleged middleman, arrested in the bribery case in April 2017 and given custody parole on July 5, 2019, by Goyal, who was then Additional Sessions Judge, in a cheating case.

The relief in one case was extended from time to time until December 14, 2019 by Goyal. On December 20 last year, the High Court ordered his immediate custody.


Sukesh had obtained extension of his custody parole from Madras High Court.

Noting violation of Delhi Prison Rules, which allow custody parole for a period of not more than six hours, excluding the time taken to reach the destination and return to prison, the HC had ordered action against Goyal.


The Special Judge Bansal was aggrieved by the conduct of the police, who failed to produced the accused before it, despite an order was passed for his production.

First published on: 26-02-2020 at 04:35:27 am
Next Story

Dushyant Chautala: Will change law to ensure no bail to liquor smugglers for six months

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments