The Delhi High Court emphasized the urgent need to suspend Dilip Ray's conviction during the appeal process, highlighting the risk of irreversible damage if this action is not taken. Dilip Ray submitted a petition to the high court invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking to contest the trial court's ruling. His aim is to run in the Odisha Legislative Assembly elections in 2024.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that if the applicant's request is denied, he will forfeit the opportunity to participate in the election, leading to irreversible consequences and severe damage to his political career and aspirations to serve his constituency."

Presented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohtagi and Pramod Kumar Dubey, Dilip Ray's legal team argued that, despite not initially pursuing the suspension of his conviction, circumstances had evolved. With the appeal remaining pending for over three years and the imminent national and state elections, Ray sought permission to contest. They underscored Ray's distinguished 35-year public service record and emphasized the critical juncture of his political career. Additionally, they highlighted Ray's clean record apart from the present case and the substantial legal and factual complexities involved in the ongoing appeal.

On the opposing side, Special Public Prosecutor RS Cheema, representing the CBI, contended that Dilip Ray abused his authority and violated trust by unlawfully using coal mining land. They asserted that Ray's conviction signified moral misconduct and suspending it would undermine public trust. Referring to legal precedents, they emphasized the strict criteria established for suspending convictions in corruption-related matters. Additionally, they argued that the inability to participate in elections due to a conviction did not warrant suspension, particularly in cases involving corruption. Consequently, they urged the court to dismiss the application on grounds of lacking merit.

Upon thorough examination of the case materials, the court acknowledged that in 2020, the trial court sentenced Dilip Ray to three years of simple imprisonment. The court carefully scrutinized Ray's involvement as delineated in the disputed judgment and the rationale presented by the trial court. Consequently, the court faced the responsibility of evaluating whether, given the unique circumstances and arguments presented, suspending Ray's conviction would uphold the principles of justice and adhere to established legal precedents.

In this context, the court recognized Dilip Ray's extensive political experience, having held positions as both Union Minister and State Minister in the Odisha Government. At the age of 71, Ray expressed his intention to run in the forthcoming elections scheduled for May 2024, with the aim of representing his constituency and making further contributions to the nation.

The court observed that Dilip Ray's intention to participate in elections was not a sudden ambition but rather rooted in his extensive political career spanning over 35 years. Taking into account the imminent elections, Ray's age, and the procedural timeline of the case, the court expressed concern that rejecting Ray's plea could lead to irreversible consequences, endangering his political trajectory and his aspirations to represent his constituency.

Relying on the precedent set in the case of Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 2 SCC 187], the court emphasized that permitting Dilip Ray's conviction to remain in force would inflict irreparable harm, as this harm couldn't be adequately compensated monetarily or through other means if he were to be acquitted at a later stage. The court deemed this scenario exceptional, particularly in light of Ansari's risk of losing his Parliament membership and being unable to participate in future elections if his conviction were not suspended.

Hence, recognizing the irreversible repercussions that could ensue if Dilip Ray were to be acquitted later, the high court leaned towards approving the current application. As a result, the court granted a stay on the conviction order pending the appeal process.