In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 415(2), read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to challenge a judgment of conviction dated 30-09-2024 and sentencing order dated 10-01-2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)-02, Saket Courts, Delhi, a Division Judge Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta called for status reports from authorities regarding the integration of certain data pertaining to criminal cases on the NCRB portal.
The appellant had also filed an application under Section 430, read with Section 528 of BNSS, seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.
On 12-01-2026, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1473 and observed that when convicts seek suspension of sentence/bail, adjournments are sought repeatedly as the information regarding the criminal antecedents is not readily available. It was further stated that such a delay could be avoided by requiring applicants to disclose criminal antecedents, along with their suspension applications, and by integrating data with National Criminal Records Bureau (NCRB) records.
The Court observed that if data from courts dealing with criminal cases is also integrated with the NCRB portal, it would provide a comprehensive source of information on the criminal antecedents of accused persons and convicts. In this context, the Court took on record the status reports that the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and the Director General of Prisons concerned were directed to file.
Upon perusal of the same, the Court noted that the Delhi Prisons had maintained a ‘Prison Management System’ (PMS) since 2004, in which the details of inmates are recorded. It was stated that the status report clarified that the criminal cases in which the person was taken into custody, as well as the criminal cases for which production warrants were issued during the inmate’s incarceration, were available in the database.
After perusing the report of the Commissioner of Delhi Police, the Court noted that the NCRB data integrates data from the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) and the Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS). The ACP, Delhi Police, submitted that three searches could be conducted on the ICJS platform, namely – Court Search, Police Search, and Prison Search. However, it was also stated that complaints that did not result in the filing of an FIR and complaints pending or decided by competent courts were not reflected.
Thus, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, opined that the comprehensive criminal justice data ecosystem would be strengthened if the NCRB’s data were expanded to include the types of cases mentioned above.
The Court opined that steps should be explored to integrate data on the NCRB portal regarding cases that do not result in FIRs, as well as complaints that are pending or have been decided by competent courts. The Court issued notice to the Director, NCRB, as well as the Deputy Director General, National Informatics Centre, who manages the NCRB database, and directed them to file status reports on whether any steps had been contemplated to integrate the following data on the NCRB portal and whether any department was looking into the matter:
i. Pending criminal cases against the Prison inmates, apart from the case in which they are lodged in jail;
ii. Complaint cases which do not result in FIRs;
iii. Complaint cases which are pending or decided by the competent Courts.
Further, the Court perused the impugned sentencing order and found that the matter had been referred to the Delhi Legal Service Authority (DLSA) for awarding compensation to the deceased’s family and complainant. Hence, the Court directed the DLSA to file a status report on whether compensation had been calculated and any disbursement had been made.
The matter is now listed on 16-04-2026.
Regarding the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence, the Court noted that the appellant had served more than 8 years and 6 months of incarceration. However, after perusing the photographs of the crime scene and the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the Court said that it was not inclined to suspend the applicant’s sentence and dismissed the application.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Sudarshan Rajan (DHCLSC), Mr. Hitain Bajaj
For Respondent – Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri (APP) Ms. Divya Yadav, Mr. Lalit Luthra
