Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th February, 2026
PARVEEN TANEJA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Rajan (DHCLSC), Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Advs.
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav and Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advs. with Dr. R.S. Gupta
SI Satish Chandra
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. On the last date of hearing i.e., 12th January, 2026, this Court had referred to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in ‘Kaushal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan’ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1473, as also in Criminal Appeal No. 632/2022 titled ‘Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr., wherein the Court had considered that the details of criminal antecedents of the persons seeking bail are required to be furnished. In the said context, this Court has observed as under:
3. In terms of the above order, this Court had observed that if the data from the Courts dealing with the criminal cases is also integrated with the National Criminal Record Bureau (hereinafter, ‘NCRB’) portal there would be a comprehensive source for accessing information relating to criminal antecedents of accused as also the convicts.
4. In this context, the Court had called for status reports from the Director General of Prisons, Delhi as also from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
5. Today, status reports have been filed by both the aforesaid authorities. The same are taken on record.
(i) Status report on behalf of Director General of Prisons, Delhi
6. The status report has been filed by the Superintendent of Prison Headquarters, Tihar, New Delhi which records as under:
7. A perusal of the status report on behalf of the Director General of Prisons, Delhi shows that the Delhi Prisons have been maintaining a ‘Prison Management System’ (hereinafter, ‘PMS’) since 2004, wherein details of inmates are recorded, including personal particulars, warrants details, case details along with nominal rolls etc.
8. The status report clarifies that the following data is available on the database:
(i) Criminal cases in which the person is taken into custody;
(ii) Criminal cases in respect of which production warrants are received during the incarceration of the inmate.
9. It is contended that there are various other categories of cases, where the relevant data is not available on the database. The same have been categorized in paragraph 5 of the status report extracted hereinabove. As per the same, the data relating to the following cases is not available:
I. Where the inmate has not been arrested;
II. Where no production warrants have been received; and
III. Where such cases are not reflected in jail records or PMS data.
IV. Where such cases are prior to year 2004
10. Additionally, it is further contended that whatever information of criminal antecedents is available is sent along with nominal roll. However, the said data may not contain all the information pertaining to the criminal antecedents, inasmuch as data relating to the complaint cases and those cases pending before the Courts are not presently integrated.
(ii) Status report on behalf of the office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi
11. The office of the Commissioner Delhi Police through Deputy Commissioner of Police - Mr. Aditya Gautam has filed the present status report. In terms of the same, details have been provided about the data that is available on the NCRB portal. The said status report reads as under:
12. A perusal of the above status report would reveal that the NCRB data integrates the data from the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (hereinafter, ‘CCTNS’) as also the Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (hereinafter, ‘ICJS’). The ICJS integrates data from Police, Courts, Prosecution, Forensic Science Laboratories, and Prisons.
13. Mr. Mukesh Rathi, ACP, Delhi Police, who is present in Court submits that there are three possible searches that can be carried out on the ICJS platform, including Court Search, Police Search and Prison Search. However, the data is largely confined to FIR based criminal cases which are fed into the CCTNS by the police.
14. Further, the status report also clarifies that there are two types of cases for which the data is not reflected:
(i) Complaint cases which do not result in the culmination of the FIR;
(ii) Complaint cases which are pending or decided by the
15. Thus, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi is of the opinion that the comprehensive criminal justice data ecosystem would be strengthened if the data captured by the NCRB can be expanded to include the aforesaid types of cases also.
16. Heard. In the light of the two status reports that have been placed on record today, this Court is of the opinion that steps ought to be explored for integrating data on the NCRB portal, relating to complaint cases which do not result in FIRs as also complaint cases which are pending or decided by the competent Courts.
17. Accordingly, issue notice to Director, NCRB as also DDG, NIC with whom the NCRB data base is being managed. Let the aforesaid authorities file status reports as to whether any steps have been contemplated for integrating the following data on the NCRB portal and if so, whether any department is looking into the matter or not:
(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;
(ii) Complaint cases which are pending or decided by the competent Courts.
18. Let the status reports be filed by the next date of hearing.
19. In the facts of the present case, a perusal of the order on sentence dated 10th January, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi would reveal that the matter was referred to the Delhi Legal Service Authority (hereinafter, ‘DLSA’), South East for awarding compensation to the family of the deceased and the complainant.
20. Accordingly, let a Status report be filed by DLSA, South East as to whether compensation has been calculated and any disbursement has been made or not.
21. The father of the deceased is present in Court and his details are as under: i) Name: Nem Pal ii) Mobile No.: +91 8448604876
22. The Secretary DLSA, South East shall interact with the complainant on the above mobile no. and then make a recommendation to the Court in respect of the future prospects for both the children of the deceased – who are the grandchildren of the Complainant.
23. Copy of this order shall be served by the Registry upon the Director, NCRB and the DDG, NIC through the following email addresses: ● Director NCRB: director@ncrb.gov.in ● DDG, NIC: jdcctns@ncrb.gov.in
24. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the DLSA, South East for necessary information and compliance.
25. List on 16th April, 2026. CRL.M.(BAIL) 451/2025 (for suspension of sentence)
26. The present application has been filed by the Appellant under Section 430 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking suspension of sentence and release of Appellant on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.
27. The Trial Court has convicted the Appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide the order on conviction dated 30th September, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)- 02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. This was followed by the order on sentence dated 10th January, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi by which the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed.
28. It is the order of conviction as also the order on sentence which has been challenged by the Appellant in the present appeal. At present, however, the Court is only considering the application for suspension of sentence filed by the Appellant.
29. The present application has been filed by the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant has served more than 8 years 6 months of incarceration.
30. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, ld. Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that the Appellant and the deceased wife had a love marriage. There are no finger prints which exist on the knife or on the gas cylinder which are stated to be the tools used to murder the deceased. It is further submitted that the Appellant has served a long period of incarceration and does not have any criminal antecedents. Moreover, it is also submitted that his record in the jail has also been satisfactory. Thus, it is prayed that the sentence of the Appellant may be suspended and he shall be released on bail.
31. On the other hand, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, ld. APP has taken the Court through the testimonies of PW-3 i.e, the father of the deceased as also PW-4 i.e., the minor child of the deceased, who have confirmed the presence of the Appellant at the crime scene.
32. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the records. PW-3 and PW-4 have confirmed the presence of the Appellant at the crime scene. Moreover, the photographs of the crime scene which have been placed on record reveals the manner in which the deceased was brutally murdered. After having perused the evidence, at this stage, the Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of the Appellant, at this stage.
33. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE FEBRUARY 4, 2026 dj/prg/sm