New Delhi, October 1, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Delhi High Court has rejected the plea of Bihar BJP MLA Raju Kumar Singh seeking suspension of his conviction in a 2018 celebratory firing case that resulted in the death of a woman at a New Year’s Eve party in Delhi, observing that no apparent illegality or manifest error had been established to justify such relief.
Justice Manoj Jain dismissed Singh’s application, holding that suspension of a conviction is an exceptional judicial remedy that can be granted only in rare circumstances. The court found no “manifest perversity and palpable error” in the trial court’s findings warranting interference at this stage.
Singh, who represents the Sahebganj Assembly constituency in Bihar, was convicted by the Rouse Avenue Court on June 6 under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 30 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to four years in prison for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and two months’ imprisonment under the Arms Act. The trial court also directed him to pay Rs 25 lakh in compensation to the victim’s family, with an additional three months’ imprisonment in case of default.
Although the High Court had suspended his sentence on July 27, 2026, Singh subsequently approached it for suspension of the conviction itself, citing the consequences of disqualification from the Assembly and restrictions on contesting future elections.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Singh, argued that his conviction for an offence carrying a sentence exceeding two years attracted disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He submitted that Singh had approximately four years remaining in his legislative tenure and would also face disqualification from contesting elections for six years after his release from prison.
Luthra further contended that the conviction was based on unwarranted presumptions and that material evidence, including forensic analysis, had not been properly considered.
The prosecution opposed the application, maintaining that suspension of conviction could not be granted routinely and was permissible only under exceptional circumstances, which were absent in the case.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, Justice Jain observed that courts must assess the consequences of a conviction while considering factors such as criminal antecedents, the gravity of the offence, moral turpitude and its wider social impact. The court also emphasised the need to balance the electoral process with the rights of constituents to representation.
“The hardship cited is an omnibus one and not individual-centric,” the judge observed, adding that the specific facts of each case remained the dominant consideration.
The case relates to a party held at Rose Farm House in Mandi village on the intervening night of December 31, 2018, and January 1, 2019. According to the prosecution, Singh and his security guard, Hari Singh, who was carrying a .315-bore rifle, engaged in celebratory firing during the gathering. Singh allegedly fired four to five rounds from his .22-bore pistol.
After a gap of approximately five minutes, another round was fired, during which the prosecution alleged that Singh was the only person using a firearm.
Shortly afterwards, Archana Gupta was found unconscious on the dance floor. She was taken to Fortis Hospital in Vasant Kunj, where she succumbed to a gunshot injury.
The trial court held that firing a licensed pistol at a crowded gathering amounted to an act committed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
Examining the evidence for the limited purpose of deciding the suspension plea, the High Court observed that the record indicated Singh had used his pistol at the crucial moment, with no other person seen firing at that time. It also held that whether the bullet struck Gupta directly or after ricocheting did not materially alter the finding that the injury resulted from the firing attributed to Singh.
The court further noted that the offence involved an element of moral turpitude and that Singh did not have a clean antecedent record, although he had been acquitted in several other cases.
Dismissing the application, Justice Jain clarified that the observations made in the order were tentative and would not affect the merits of Singh’s criminal appeal, which has been admitted and will be listed for hearing in due course.
FOLLOW NOW
