"Hands Up!" – Delhi Court's Unique Punishment for Time-Wasters

In a rare disciplinary move, a Delhi court expressed strong disapproval of repeated delays by certain accused individuals and imposed an unusual punishment for wasting judicial time.

Judicial Magistrate First Class Saurabh Goyal of the Dwarka Court was presiding over a complaint case when he noted that, despite being called twice between 10:00 AM and 11:40 AM, the accused failed to furnish their bail bonds as previously ordered.

The court observed that the delay in complying with the bail bond order, issued on the previous hearing date, constituted contempt of court.

"Despite waiting and calling the matter twice from 10:00 AM till 11:40 AM, the bail bonds were not furnished by the accused persons," the court noted in its order. "For wasting the time of the court... the accused persons are hereby held guilty for contempt of court proceedings and are convicted for offence U/s 228 IPC. They are directed to stand in the court till the rising of this court with their hands straight in the air."

The unique form of reprimand, though not commonly seen in Indian courtrooms, was meant to underline the seriousness of timely compliance in legal proceedings.

One of the accused, Kuldeep, had still not submitted his bond by 11:40 AM and was consequently sent to judicial custody for two weeks. However, at around 12:48 PM, his counsel informed the court that the required bail bond and surety documents were ready.

Upon verification, the court granted him bail.

“Kuldeep is admitted to bail upon furnishing of P/B and S/B in the sum of ₹10,000 each. Requisite bail bonds furnished. The same are attested and accepted,” the order read.

Legal Representation:

Advocate Sandeep Shokeen appeared for the complainant.

Accused Upasana and Anand were represented by Advocate Tapish Sehrawat.

Accused Kuldeep and Rakesh were represented by Advocate Hemant Kapoor.

This incident highlights the court’s growing intolerance toward delays that obstruct the judicial process and sets a noteworthy precedent for future contempt matters.