In a remarkable turn of events, the Delhi High Court has effectively concluded a 41-year-old bribery case, granting significant relief to a 90-year-old man who was the accused. The case, dating back to 1984, saw the court reduce Surendra Kumar's sentence to the single day he had already spent in custody.

Surendra Kumar, who was serving as the Chief Marketing Manager of the State Trading Corporation of India (STCI) at the time of his arrest, was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹15,000 from a business partner. Following the allegations, the CBI laid a trap, and Kumar was arrested in January 1984. He was soon granted bail and remained free throughout the protracted trial and appeal proceedings.

The legal proceedings dragged on for decades. It wasn't until 2002, almost two decades after the initial arrest, that Kumar was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment along with a fine of ₹15,000. Kumar promptly appealed the conviction and sentence to the High Court, which then stayed his custody while the appeal was pending.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, in his judgment on July 8, 2025, highlighted the "inordinate delay" that plagued both the trial and the appeal. The trial took 19 years to conclude, while the appeal remained pending for over 22 years. The court observed that this extensive delay was a significant factor, stating that it was "plainly at odds with the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India". Justice Singh also noted that the "Sword of Damocles" had hung over Kumar for nearly 40 years, which in itself was a mitigating circumstance.

The FIR in the case stated that Abdul Karim Hamid, a partner in a Mumbai-based firm, submitted a quotation to supply 140 tonnes of dried fish to the STCI. Hamid alleged that Kumar asked him to bring ₹7,500 in cash to a hotel as part of the bribe, with the remainder to be paid after the order was secured.

While Kumar's counsel did not contest the conviction before the High Court, they pleaded for a reduction in the sentence, considering Kumar's advanced age and health. The court was informed that Kumar was suffering from serious health ailments and would face undue hardship if incarcerated at this stage. It was also brought to the court's attention that Kumar had already paid the fine imposed by the trial court.

The High Court took into account Kumar's age, medical condition, the extensive delays in the legal process, and the fact that he had no other criminal record. The court concluded that the interests of justice would be best served by reducing his sentence to the time he had already served in custody, which was one day. The court also discharged his bail and surety bonds. The High Court emphasized that at 90 years old and with serious health issues, Kumar was highly vulnerable to the physical and psychological impact of imprisonment and that further incarceration would risk causing irreversible harm and defeat the purpose of mitigating the sentence.