Supreme Court orders training for two Delhi judges over flawed bail to accused in ₹6 crore cheating case

The Supreme Court recently came down heavily on the manner in which bail was granted to a couple accused of duping a private company of over ₹6 crore [M/S Netsity Systems Pvt Ltd. vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.]..A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti held that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and the Sessions Judge of Karkardooma Court had failed to apply settled principles while granting and upholding bail to the accused. The Court directed that both officers undergo a minimum of seven days of training at the Delhi Judicial Academy.The Court also ordered a departmental inquiry into the conduct of the investigating officer after noting serious lapses on the part of the police.The investigating officer’s stand in the bail proceedings “spoke volumes", the Court said while ordering the Delhi Police Commissioner to conduct a personal inquiry into the officer’s role and take necessary action..The dispute arose from allegations by a company that the accused-couple took ₹1.9 crore with the promise of transferring land, but later refused to return the money after it was discovered that the land had already been sold and mortgaged. With accrued interest, the company claimed its dues had reached over ₹6 crore. A complaint filed in 2017 led to the registration of a first information report (FIR) in 2018. The couple’s plea for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Delhi High Court in 2023, with the Court severely criticising their conduct. The High Court remarked that the couple misled courts for years by giving false undertakings to repay the amount while enjoying interim protection from arrest.Despite this, the ACMM in November 2023 granted them regular bail, reasoning that since the chargesheet had been filed, there was no need for custody. The Sessions Judge later upheld the order in August 2024 and the Delhi High Court also refused to interfere. .The Supreme Court disapproved of this approach, noting that the lower courts had glossed over the accused’s prior misconduct and failed to consider the High Court’s earlier observations.The Bench underscored that bail matters must turn on facts and conduct, not mechanical reasoning.“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 said..The judges went a step further and flagged procedural irregularities, observing that the accused had formally appeared before the magistrate in October 2023 but were allowed to leave court without any interim release order until bail was eventually granted in November.Taking note of these lapses, the Bench quashed the bail orders of the ACMM, the Sessions Judge and the High Court and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks.The Court stressed that its directions were not meant to dilute principles of liberty but to ensure accountability and adherence to judicial discipline.“We would be failing in our duty if we turned a blind eye to the manner in which the ACMM granted bail to the accused and the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with such grant of 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 Court ordered..It further directed the Commissioner of Police of Delhi to complete the inquiry against the investigating officer on priority..The complainant was represented by Senior Advocate Jitendra Sethi, along with advocates Keshav Sethi, Bharat Kashyap and Anmol Anand. The State were represented by Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay and Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi along with advocates Shubham Prakash Mishra, Subh Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Digvijay Dam, BK Satija, Santosh Kumar, Aaditya Dixit and Abhinav Mishra.The private respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam along with advocates Chayan Sarkar, Arshnit Sandhu, Karan Bindra and Rajesh Sharma..[Read Judgment]