Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

¶1

$~SB-1 to SB-3

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 09.02.2026

¶4

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

¶5

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.

¶6

Signature Not Verified

¶7

Signed By:DEEPANSHU CRL.A. 239/2025 and connected matters Signing Date:09.02.2026 19:54:20

¶8

Page 1 of 7

¶9

Appellant produced from Central Jail No. 1 through V.C.

¶10

versus

¶11

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: None.

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶13

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present appeals are filed challenging the following judgments respectively:

¶15

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 ’).

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Signed By:DEEPANSHU CRL.A. 239/2025 and connected matters Signing Date:09.02.2026 19:54:20

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Signed By:DEEPANSHU CRL.A. 239/2025 and connected matters Signing Date:09.02.2026 19:54:20

¶26

Page 3 of 7

¶27

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.

¶28

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:

¶29

*Sl.* *No.*	*Case No.*	*FIR No.*	*Particulars* of *conviction*	*Sentence*	*Status* as on *29.01.2026*
1.	CRL.A. 239/2025	FIR No. 960/2013 PS- Govind Puri	Judgment on conviction dated 09.04.2024 Order on sentence dated 09.01.2025	*u/s 328 IPC* – RI 6 years and fine of ₹20,000, in default of fine SI for 60 days *u/s 379 IPC* – RI 2 years and fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of 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.	Was undergoing sentence in this case as per the last nominal roll dated 04.07.2025 Sentence completed on Sept/Oct 2025.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Signed By:DEEPANSHU CRL.A. 239/2025 and connected matters Signing Date:09.02.2026 19:54:20

¶32

Page 4 of 7

¶33

2.	CRL.A. 582/2025	FIR No. 138/2014 PS- Govind Puri	Judgment on conviction dated 09.04.2024 Order on sentence dated 09.01.2025	*u/s 328 IPC* – RI 6 years and fine of ₹20,000/- and in default of fine SI 60 days. *u/s 379 IPC* – RI 3 years and fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of fine, SI 20 days.	Period custody undertri 4 years months 11 days Remain sentenc has commen yet. Appln. suspens of sent is pending before coordin Bench (NDOH 10.02.2	in as al: 10 and ing e not ced for ion ence still the ate - 026)
3.	CRL.A. 1038/2025	FIR No. 42/2014 PS- Chitranjan Park	Judgment on conviction dated 28.09.2024 Order on sentence dated 20.03.2025	*u/s* *411/75* *IPC*– RI 6 years and fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of fine, SI 30 days	Period custody undertri 4 year Month days. Remain sentenc has commen yet.	in as al: s 1 11 ing e not ced

¶34

On such a conspectus of facts, this Court is now faced with a conundrum as to whether the respective sentences of the

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Signed By:DEEPANSHU CRL.A. 239/2025 and connected matters Signing Date:09.02.2026 19:54:20

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Signed By:DEEPANSHU CRL.A. 239/2025 and connected matters Signing Date:09.02.2026 19:54:20

¶43

Page 6 of 7

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

A copy of the order be placed in all the matters.

¶48

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶49

FEBRUARY 9, 2026/ “SK”

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Signed By:DEEPANSHU CRL.A. 239/2025 and connected matters Signing Date:09.02.2026 19:54:20

¶52

Page 7 of 7

Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Singh @ Parth Devnath v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandeshwar Alias Sunil Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Amit Sharma Vs State ( NCT of Delhi)

Chandeshwar Alias Sunil Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Somwati Vs Suresh Jain

Indian Bank Vs Mohan Murti Shandilya

Arjun Singh @ Parth Dev Nath Vs State (Nct of Delhi)