New Delhi [India]: The Supreme Court of India has criticised the manner in which bail was granted to a couple accused of defrauding a private company of over ₹6 crore, highlighting serious lapses by lower courts and the investigating officer. The Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti directed corrective action to ensure accountability and adherence to judicial discipline.
Lapses in bail proceedings
The dispute involved allegations that the accused-couple received ₹1.9 crore from M/S Netsity Systems Pvt Ltd with the promise of transferring land. It was later discovered that the land had already been sold and mortgaged. With accrued interest, the company claimed dues exceeding ₹6 crore.
The FIR was registered in 2018 following a 2017 complaint. The couple’s plea for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Delhi High Court in 2023, which criticised their conduct, noting that the couple misled courts by providing false undertakings to repay the amount while enjoying interim protection from arrest.
Despite this, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) granted them regular bail in November 2023, reasoning that since the chargesheet had been filed, custody was unnecessary. The Sessions Judge upheld the order in August 2024, and the Delhi High Court refused to interfere.
Supreme Court’s observations
The Supreme Court quashed the bail orders of the ACMM, Sessions Judge, and High Court, directing the couple to surrender within two weeks. The Bench stated, “Bail matters are primarily to be adjudicated on the facts and circumstances, before applying any principle of law. In light of the glaring factual matrix, bail ought not to have been granted.”
The Court noted procedural irregularities, highlighting that the accused formally appeared before the magistrate in October 2023 but were allowed to leave without any interim release order until bail was granted in November 2023.
The judges emphasised that the directions were not intended to undermine principles of liberty but to ensure judicial accountability. “We would be failing in our duty if we turned a blind eye to the manner in which the ACMM granted bail… The Judicial Officers who passed the Orders dated 10.11.2023 and 16.08.2024 shall undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days,” the Bench ordered.
Inquiry into investigating officer
The Court also flagged serious lapses by the investigating officer, whose conduct in the bail proceedings “spoke volumes.” The Delhi Police Commissioner was directed to conduct a departmental inquiry and take necessary action.
Legal representation
The complainant was represented by Senior Advocate Jitendra Sethi along with Keshav Sethi, Bharat Kashyap, and Anmol Anand. The State was represented by Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, and a team of advocates. The private respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam along with a team of advocates.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s orders underscore the importance of judicial discipline, fact-based reasoning, and accountability in bail matters. By quashing the bail and mandating training for judicial officers, the Court has signalled that lapses in procedure and oversight will not be tolerated, even in routine judicial processes.