Delhi High Court Suspends Life Sentence in Ankit Chauhan Murder Case; Finds Eyewitness Account Prima Facie Inconsistent With Gunshot Evidence After Nine-Year Custody
Delhi High Court Grants Shashank Jadon Bail Pending Appeal; Finds Murder Conviction Requires Deeper Review of Gunshot Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony and CDRs
Facts
Shashank Jadon sought suspension of his sentence under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 during the pendency of his criminal appeal. He had been convicted by the Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Courts for offences under Sections 302, 307, 398 and 201 read with Section 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment.
The prosecution case arose from the killing of Ankit Chauhan, a young software engineer, on 13 April 2015 in Noida. Ankit was travelling in his newly purchased Toyota Fortuner with his friend Gagan Dudhoria when, according to the CBI, Jadon and his co-accused followed them in a Honda Accord as part of a conspiracy to steal the Fortuner.
The prosecution alleged that Jadon and Manoj Kumar emerged from the Honda Accord armed with weapons and demanded that Ankit stop and hand over the vehicle keys. Jadon was alleged to have fired multiple shots, causing fatal injuries to Ankit, while another shot was allegedly directed towards Gagan, who escaped by ducking. The accused then fled without taking the Fortuner.
The original investigation was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police. On a writ petition filed by Ankit’s father, the Allahabad High Court transferred the investigation to the CBI in April 2016. The trial was later transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court.
After a lengthy trial involving 57 prosecution witnesses and 11 defence witnesses, Jadon and co-accused Manoj Kumar were convicted in September 2025.
Issues
The Delhi High Court was not deciding the criminal appeal on merits. The immediate question was whether Jadon’s sentence should be suspended pending final adjudication of his appeal.
For that limited purpose, the Court considered:
- Whether the appeal raised substantial and arguable questions regarding the correctness of the conviction.
- Whether there was a prima facie inconsistency between the sole eyewitness’s account of the firing and the medical/scientific evidence concerning the gunshot injuries.
- Whether earlier apprehensions raised by the deceased’s father regarding other persons had been sufficiently examined.
- Whether the appellant’s plea that he was in Faridabad at the relevant time and the corresponding CDR evidence required deeper examination.
- Whether nearly nine years of incarceration, the likely delay in hearing the appeal and the appellant’s conduct justified suspension of sentence.
- How the Court should balance these factors against the gravity of a conviction for murder and related offences.
Appellant’s Arguments
Jadon argued that the conviction suffered from serious evidentiary infirmities.
The defence particularly attacked the testimony of Gagan Dudhoria, PW-5, the sole eyewitness and survivor. According to the defence, his version suggested that the shots were fired from some distance, whereas the post-mortem evidence showed blackening around several gunshot injuries, which ordinarily indicates firing from close range.
The defence relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan and Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence regarding firearm injuries and the significance of blackening, scorching and powder marks.
Jadon also relied upon the writ petition earlier filed by Ankit’s father before the Allahabad High Court. In that petition, the father had expressed suspicion regarding Gagan Dudhoria and Ankit’s wife and had questioned aspects of the investigation, including call-detail records.
The appellant further asserted that he was in Faridabad at around 3 p.m. on the date of the incident and contended that his CDRs supported his defence but were not properly considered.
He also relied upon his age, educational background, lack of serious antecedents, satisfactory jail conduct and the substantial period already spent in custody.
Respondent’s Arguments
The CBI opposed suspension of sentence and maintained that the Trial Court had considered the entire evidentiary record before returning the conviction.
It relied particularly upon the direct testimony of Gagan Dudhoria.
The CBI also referred to evidence relating to preparations allegedly made for the crime. PW-41, a car-accessory vendor, was relied upon concerning preparation of fake registration plates, while Satpal Bhati, PW-51, supported aspects of the prosecution case concerning the accused’s efforts to obtain a vehicle and subsequent preparation.
The complainant’s side argued that direct ocular evidence existed and that the prosecution case was additionally corroborated by CCTV material showing the Honda Accord following Ankit’s Fortuner.
It was therefore submitted that evidentiary objections concerning CDRs, ballistic evidence and motive did not justify releasing a person convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Analysis of the Law
Suspension of Sentence Is Distinct From Final Determination of Guilt
The High Court expressly clarified that it was deciding only the application for suspension of sentence, not the criminal appeal itself.
An order granting or refusing suspension could not be treated as a finding that the appellant was innocent or guilty.
The Court therefore undertook only the degree of scrutiny necessary to determine whether the appeal raised issues sufficiently substantial to justify release pending adjudication.
Eyewitness Version Versus Scientific Evidence
This became one of the most important factors.
The post-mortem report recorded several injuries exhibiting blackening, including blackened abrasions and blackening around entry wounds.
The Court considered Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, which indicated that blackening from handgun discharge is generally associated with relatively close firing distances.
In contrast, Gagan Dudhoria’s account suggested that the assailant fired while standing outside the Fortuner as Ankit attempted to reverse and escape. According to that account, one bullet first smashed the windscreen before striking Ankit’s arm and another was fired through the driver-side window.
The High Court observed that this testimony indicated firing from a distance, making the blackening found on the injuries difficult to explain prima facie.
It therefore held that the scientific evidence raised a question regarding the eyewitness account that warranted fuller examination during the appeal.
Precedent Analysis
Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan
The Court considered Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 192, where the Supreme Court had treated inconsistency concerning the distance of firearm discharge as a material circumstance.
The Supreme Court had emphasised that where death results from a lethal weapon, the prosecution must establish through expert evidence that the injuries could have been caused by the weapon and in the manner alleged.
The Delhi High Court considered that principle relevant because the blackening observed in the present post-mortem evidence prima facie raised questions about whether the shooting occurred in the manner described by the sole eyewitness.
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab
The Court then considered Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291.
That decision recognises that the conventional reluctance to release a person sentenced to life imprisonment assumes that the appeal will be heard within a reasonable period.
Where an appellate court cannot hear the appeal for several years, prolonged incarceration may result in serious injustice if the conviction is ultimately reversed.
The High Court applied this principle in light of the fact that Jadon had already undergone approximately nine years of incarceration, while his appeal, filed only in 2025, was unlikely to receive final hearing immediately.
Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Court also referred to Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., (2024) 2 SCC 187, concerning the appellate court’s powers under Section 389 CrPC, corresponding to Section 430 BNSS.
The precedent emphasises that such powers should not be construed unduly narrowly where continued operation of a conviction or sentence may produce irreversible consequences, while simultaneously requiring courts to account for societal interests.
The High Court therefore approached the case as a balancing exercise rather than treating the murder conviction as an absolute bar to suspension.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court identified several factors which, cumulatively, justified suspension of sentence.
First, the medical evidence regarding blackening of the gunshot injuries raised an issue requiring deeper scrutiny when compared with PW-5’s account of firing from a distance.
Second, the deceased’s father himself had earlier raised serious suspicions concerning Gagan Dudhoria and Ankit’s wife in the Allahabad High Court proceedings. The High Court observed that the evidentiary position concerning those apprehensions was not forthcoming.
Third, the appellant’s assertion that he was in Faridabad at the relevant time could potentially be objectively tested through call-detail records. The Court found it unclear at this stage whether those CDRs had been fully produced and analysed before the Trial Court.
Taking these matters together, the High Court stated that it could not completely rule out the possibility of an error in the conviction judgment. This was not a finding of innocence, but it demonstrated that the appeal could not be dismissed as devoid of merit.
Fourth, Jadon had already remained incarcerated for almost nine years. The nominal roll showed custody of approximately 8 years, 11 months and 6 days as on 4 August 2026, his jail conduct was satisfactory and no significant criminal antecedents apart from Negotiable Instruments Act matters were noted.
Fifth, when he had previously been released on bail twice in 2026, there had been no untoward incident or unlawful conduct.
Finally, the Court noted that the appeal was likely to take a few years for final disposal. Continued incarceration throughout that period had therefore to be weighed against the arguable issues arising from the record.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed Shashank Jadon’s application and suspended his life sentence during the pendency of his criminal appeal.
The Court held that several aspects of the evidence required close scrutiny and that it could not be said at this stage that the appellant’s challenge to his conviction conclusively lacked merit.
It particularly relied upon:
- the apparent inconsistency between the sole eyewitness’s version and scientific evidence relating to gunshot blackening;
- unanswered questions arising from the deceased’s father’s earlier apprehensions;
- uncertainty regarding full consideration of the appellant’s CDR-based alibi;
- approximately nine years already spent in custody;
- the likely delay before final hearing of the appeal;
- satisfactory jail conduct; and
- the absence of misconduct during earlier periods of bail.
The suspension was made subject to strict conditions, including a ₹1 lakh personal bond with one surety, surrender of passport, prohibition on leaving India without prior permission, monthly reporting to the CBI, maintenance of updated residential and mobile details, prohibition against criminal activity and a complete bar on contacting the deceased’s family or prosecution witnesses.
The Court expressly clarified that its observations would not affect the final adjudication of the criminal appeal.
Key Ratio
Where a life convict has undergone prolonged incarceration, the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon and material evidentiary issues—including a prima facie conflict between ocular and scientific evidence—require deeper scrutiny, suspension of sentence may be justified pending appeal without expressing any final opinion on guilt.
Case Details
Case: Shashank Jadon v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1564 of 2025; CRL.M.(BAIL) 2266/2025
Judges: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan
Judgment by: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Reserved on: 22 July 2026
Date: 19 August 2026
Result: Application allowed; life sentence suspended during pendency of appeal subject to bail and reporting conditions. Conviction remains under challenge and no final opinion was expressed on guilt or innocence.
