[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 9 February, 2026
$~SB-1 to SB-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 239/2025
ARJUN SINGH @ PARTH DEVNATH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr.
Nandeesh Nanda & Mr.
Shivom Sethi, Advs.
Appellant produced from
Central Jail No. 1 through
V.C.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: SI Ravi Yadav, PS
Govindpuri.
+ CRL.A. 582/2025 & CRL.M.A. 13616/2025,
CRL.M.(BAIL) 957/2025
ARJUN SINGH @ PARTH DEVNATH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr.
Nandeesh Nanda & Mr.
Shivom Sethi, Advs.
Appellant produced from
Central Jail No. 1 through
V.C.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: SI Ravi Yadav, PS
Govindpuri.
+ CRL.A. 1038/2025 & CRL.M.A. 21257/2025
ARJUN SINGH @ PARTH DEV NATH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr.
Nandeesh Nanda & Mr.
Shivom Sethi, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU CRL.A. 239/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 7
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:54:20
Appellant produced from
Central Jail No. 1 through
V.C.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeals are filed challenging the following
judgments respectively:
1.1. CRL.A. 239/2025 has been filed against the
judgment on conviction dated 09.04.2024 and order on
sentence dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court
in SC No. 1138/2016 arising out of FIR No. 960/2013
registered at Police Station Govind Puri for offences under
Sections 328/379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
('IPC').
1.2. CRL.A. 582/2025 has been filed against the
judgment on conviction dated 09.04.2024 and order on
sentence dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court
in SC No. 1137/2016 arising out of FIR No. 138/2014
registered at Police Station Govind Puri for offences under
Sections 328/379/34 of the IPC.
1.3. CRL.A. 1038/2025 has been filed against the
judgment on conviction dated 28.09.2024 and order on
sentence dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court
in SC No. 1846/2016 arising out of FIR No. 42/2014
registered at Police Station Chitranjan Park for offences
under Sections 328/379/411/34 of the IPC.
2. Briefly, the respective FIRs were registered against the
Appellant essentially pertaining to the allegations of theft.
3. The Appellant appears through video conferencing from
Central Jail No. 1, Tihar Jail pursuant to directions issued by
order dated 07.02.2026. On being asked, it is submitted that the
Appellant does not wish to press challenge to the impugned
judgments and that he will be satisfied if the respective sentences
of the Appellant are commuted to the period already undergone
by him in the respective cases. Affidavit indicating the mitigating
circumstances has also been placed on record.
4. It is further submitted that the Appellant belongs to a poor
strata of the society. The family of the Appellant comprises of his
parents who are more than 70 years old and are suffering from
multiple old age-related ailments and a brother, who works as a
rickshaw-puller in Agartala and is struggling to look after the
parents, his own children, his own wife as well as the Appellant's
minor child due to financial crisis. As the affidavit manifests, the
marital life of the Appellant has also suffered due to his arrest
and the wife of the Appellant has left her matrimonial home. The
affidavit further indicates that they are facing severe financial
hardships and even the school going son of the Appellant has
been suffering due to the condition of the family and their
relations with the society.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State had submitted that considering the
mitigating circumstances, he had no objection if the sentences of
the Appellant are commuted to the period already undergone by
him in the respective cases.
6. From the record, the particulars of the impugned sentences
and the period of sentence already undergone by the Appellant in
the respective cases emanates as follows:
Sl. Case No. FIR No. Particulars Sentence Status as
No. of on
conviction 29.01.2026
1. CRL.A. FIR No. Judgment on u/s 328 IPC Was
239/2025 960/2013 conviction - RI 6 years undergoing
dated and fine of sentence in
PS- 09.04.2024 ₹20,000, in this case as
Govind Order on default of per the last
Puri sentence fine SI for nominal
dated 60 days roll dated
09.01.2025 04.07.2025
u/s 379 IPC
- RI 2 years Sentence
and fine of completed
₹5,000/- and on Sept/Oct
in default of 2025.
fine, SI for
20 days
u/s 411 IPC
- RI 2 years
and fine of
₹5,000, and
in default of
fine SI 20
days.
2. CRL.A. FIR No. Judgment on u/s 328 IPC Period in
582/2025 138/2014 conviction - RI 6 years custody as
dated and fine of undertrial:
PS- 09.04.2024 ₹20,000/- 4 years 10
Govind Order on and in months and
Puri sentence default of 11 days
dated fine SI 60
09.01.2025 days. Remaining
sentence
u/s 379 IPC has not
- RI 3 years commenced
and fine of yet.
₹5,000/- and
in default of Appln. for
fine, SI 20 suspension
days. of sentence
is still
pending
before the
coordinate
Bench
(NDOH-
10.02.2026)
3. CRL.A. FIR No. Judgment on u/s 411/75 Period in
1038/2025 42/2014 conviction IPC - RI 6 custody as
dated years and undertrial:
PS- 28.09.2024 fine of 4 years 1
Chitranjan Order on ₹5,000/- and Month 11
Park sentence in default of days.
dated fine, SI 30
20.03.2025 days Remaining
sentence
has not
commenced
yet.
7. On such a conspectus of facts, this Court is now faced with
a conundrum as to whether the respective sentences of the
Appellant ought to be commuted to the period already undergone
by him. The table produced supra indicates that the Appellant
has already undergone the sentence in FIR No. 960/2013
[CRL.A. 239/2025] and only the sentence in default of payment
of fine is pending.
8. In FIR No. 42/2014 [CRL.A. 1038/2025], the Appellant
has already undergone more than 4 years and 1 months of
imprisonment out of the total awarded sentence of 6 years.
Similarly, in FIR No. 138/2014 [CRL.A. 582/2025] the Appellant
has already undergone more than 4 years and 11 months of
imprisonment out of the total awarded sentence of 6 years.
9. It is apparent that the Appellant has already undergone a
substantial portion of his sentence in FIR Nos. 138/2014 and
42/2014. It is also relevant to note that no minimum sentence is
prescribed for the offences under Sections 379 or 328 of the IPC.
10. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to take note
of the reformative purpose of sentencing as well as the mitigating
circumstances. It is pertinent to note that the aspect of sentencing
is not merely a mechanical endeavour. The same demands a
balancing of the nature of the offence, the overarching principles
of criminal jurisprudence as well as the circumstances of the
offender. In the present case, as noted above, the appellant is
stated to belong to a poor strata of the society and the family of
the Appellant is also stated to have been suffering from financial
hardships. The Appellant is also responsible to provide for his
family which comprises his old and ailing parents, wife and a
minor child.
11. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and considering
the circumstances as listed above, this Court is of the opinion that
no purpose would be served by subjecting the Appellant to
undergo further incarceration. In the opinion of this Court,
interests of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon
the Appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him
in the respective cases, however, maintaining the sentence for
payment of fine.
12. In view of the above, without interfering with the
conviction of the Appellant in the respective cases, the respective
sentences are reduced to the imprisonment already suffered by
the Appellant and fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court.
13. The total fine amount of ₹60,000/- is directed to be
deposited by the Appellant within three months from the date of
his release and in default of payment of the same to undergo
simple imprisonment of 20 days in each FIR.
14. The present appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
15. The Appellant is directed to be released from custody
forthwith. The bail bond and sureties, if any, furnished by the
Appellant shall stand discharged.
16. In view of the foregoing, the date already fixed in Crl. A.
582/2025 i.e. 10.02.2026 stands cancelled.
17. A copy of the order be placed in all the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 9, 2026/"SK"
