The Delhi High Court on Tuesday suspended the four-year prison sentence of a businessman convicted for criminal breach of trust involving nearly ₹3 crore, observing that the conviction itself may not survive closer scrutiny in appeal. The order brings temporary relief to Sumeet Suri, whose appeal against conviction is pending before the court.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to the mid-2000s and revolves around a business partnership that later turned bitter. According to the prosecution, Sumeet Suri and complainant Aniljeet Singh came together in 2005 to run a garment company, Ivory Clothing Private Limited.
Read also:- After 8 Years of Delay, Delhi High Court Orders Income Tax Dept to Refund ₹5.37 Crore to Microsoft India
When Singh’s father fell seriously ill and later passed away, Suri allegedly took charge of the company’s day-to-day affairs. After resuming control, the complainant claimed to have discovered serious financial irregularities - unpaid dues, unexplained advances, and money allegedly diverted through another company linked to Suri.
An MoU was signed in 2008, under which Suri agreed to step down and pay ₹1.30 crore. However, a later forensic audit allegedly revealed a much larger diversion of funds, estimated at around ₹3 crore. A charge sheet was filed in 2014, followed by supplementary investigations stretching over several years.
In September 2025, the trial court convicted Suri under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal breach of trust by a person in a position of responsibility), sentencing him to four years of rigorous imprisonment. He was, however, acquitted of cheating and forgery charges.
Read also:- Corruption Probes Back on Track: Supreme Court Reverses Andhra HC’s FIR Quash Order
Arguments Before the High Court
Appearing for the appellant, senior counsel argued that the conviction under Section 409 could not stand when the trial court itself had rejected allegations of forgery, fake bills, and cheating.
The defence submitted that the entire prosecution story was built on forged documents and dishonest inducement.
“Once those allegations failed, the foundation for criminal breach of trust also collapses,” the counsel argued.
On the other hand, the complainant’s side contended that Suri abused his position as a director and siphoned off company funds. It was also argued that lapses in investigation led to acquittal on forgery charges and that the complainant intended to challenge those acquittals separately.
Read also:- PF Authorities Can’t Appeal Their Own Process, Says Telangana High Court While Dismissing EPFO Plea
Court’s Observations
Justice Vikas Mahajan, after examining the trial court record, noted that the charge of criminal breach of trust was directly linked to allegations of forgery and cheating that were not proved during trial.
The court observed that,
“once the allegations of forgery and cheating have not been established, the substratum for the offence under Section 409 IPC appears to be knocked out.”
The bench also relied on Supreme Court rulings that stress a liberal approach in suspending sentences where the punishment is for a fixed term and the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon. Keeping a convict in jail for the entire sentence period, the court noted, could render the appeal meaningless.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Minor Rape Case, Rejects Appeal Against Conviction
Importantly, the High Court clarified that at the stage of deciding sentence suspension, it should not re-evaluate evidence in detail. Any investigative lapses, the judge added, would operate to the benefit of the accused, not the prosecution.
The Decision
Finding no compelling reason to keep Suri behind bars during the pendency of his appeal, the Delhi High Court ordered suspension of his sentence.
The court directed his release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with a family member as surety, subject to conditions including regular court appearances and maintaining an active contact number.
With this, the High Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence, leaving the merits of the criminal appeal to be decided at a later stage.
Case Title: Sumeet Suri vs State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: CRL.A. 1434/2025
