Imagine sitting in police custody, borrowing a constable’s phone, and calling the judge who is handling your case. Now imagine pretending to be a Supreme Court judge on that call, just to demand your own bail.
That is exactly what notorious conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar did. Now, a Delhi court has sentenced him to eight years in prison for this massive legal fraud.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Tis Hazari Court delivered the strict sentence. She made it clear that trying to manipulate the justice system is an attack on the rule of law itself.
The Fake Phone Call That Backfired
The story goes back to April 2017. Chandrasekhar was in police custody for a corruption case. His case was being heard by Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary.
According to the prosecution, Chandrasekhar managed to get his hands on the mobile phone of a police constable named Manjeet. Using this phone, he called Judge Chaudhary’s official landline and her personal mobile number.
First, the caller claimed to be the personal secretary of a sitting Supreme Court judge (identified in the case records only by the initials “KJ”). Then, another voice came on the line. This person pretended to be the Supreme Court judge himself.
The fake judge claimed he was calling on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium. He ordered the trial court judge to grant Chandrasekhar bail immediately. He even threatened her with serious career consequences if she did not obey.
Caught In The Lie
Judge Chaudhary did not just blindly follow the voice on the phone. She contacted the Supreme Court and spoke to the actual private secretary of the judge in question.
The truth came out quickly. The Supreme Court office confirmed that no such call was ever made. Furthermore, the name given by the caller as the “secretary” did not even match anyone working in that office.
On August 20, the trial court officially convicted Chandrasekhar. The judge called his actions a ridiculous, theatrical drama aimed at hijacking a live judicial proceeding.
The 8-Year Jail Sentence Explained
On August 29, the court announced the punishment. Chandrasekhar was found guilty under three specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- 2 years in jail for impersonating a public servant.
- 2 years in jail for threatening a public servant.
- 4 years in jail for criminal intimidation using anonymous communication.
Consecutive vs. Concurrent Sentencing: In criminal law, if a person is convicted of multiple crimes, the judge decides how the sentences will run. If they run “concurrently,” they happen at the same time (so the maximum time served would just be 4 years). But the judge ordered these sentences to run consecutively. This means they run one after the other. Therefore, 2 + 2 + 4 equals a total of 8 years behind bars.
Chandrasekhar’s lawyers asked for mercy and concurrent sentences. The court refused. The judge noted that he showed zero regret. Instead, he had spent the trial trying to ruin the credibility of the judge who complained against him.
What The Law Says
Chandrasekhar was convicted under the older Indian Penal Code (IPC) because the crime happened in 2017. Here is what the law says, along with how these crimes are treated under India’s new criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023:
- Impersonating a Public Servant: Section 170 of the IPC makes it a crime to pretend to hold a government or public office to do something illegal. Under the new BNS 2023, this is covered under Section 204.
- Threatening a Public Servant: Section 189 of the IPC punishes anyone who threatens a public servant with injury to stop them from doing their duty. The new BNS covers this under Section 226.
- Anonymous Criminal Intimidation: Section 507 of the IPC deals with threatening someone while hiding your identity. Under the new BNS, criminal intimidation is handled under Section 351.
Court Slams Shoddy Police Work
While the court punished the conman, it also had harsh words for the Delhi Police. The judge criticized the investigation, calling it superficial and careless.
The court pointed out major failures by the police. Investigators never recovered the mobile phone used for the crime. They failed to collect CCTV footage from the Crime Branch office. They delayed questioning important witnesses. Most shockingly, the police never properly investigated how a prisoner in their custody managed to get hold of a smartphone to make these calls.
Why This Matters For You
This case is a strong reminder of how the justice system protects itself from fraud. The court made a powerful statement: judicial orders are decided in courtrooms based on evidence, not dictated over secret phone calls.
The judge noted that Chandrasekhar believed a lie could beat the rule of law if it was told with enough confidence. By handing down an 8-year consecutive sentence, the court proved him wrong. Impersonating a Supreme Court judge is not just a simple fraud; it is a direct attack on the institutions that keep a democracy running.
The Takeaway: The law distinguishes between a simple mistake and a calculated plot to destroy the justice system, and the punishment will always match the gravity of the disrespect shown to the courts.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
