SC Orders Judicial Training for Bail Order Lapses in ₹6.25 Cr Scam; Criticises "Perversity" in Lower Courts' Approach

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has set aside bail granted to a couple accused in a multi-crore land fraud case and directed special judicial training for two Delhi Judicial Officers for their “illegal and erroneous” handling of the matter.

The Apex Court expressed deep concern over the approach adopted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and the Sessions Judge at Karkardooma Courts, who granted and upheld bail, respectively, to the accused despite serious factual irregularities and misleading conduct by the accused over several years.

Direction for Judicial Training

The Court directed that both judicial officers must undergo a minimum of seven days of special judicial training at the Delhi Judicial Academy. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been requested to arrange the training, with particular emphasis on:

• Conducting judicial proceedings involving decisions of superior courts.

• The level of deference that must be accorded to higher court rulings.

• “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,” said the bench in its judgment authored by Justice Amanullah.

Serious Procedural and Legal Errors

While overturning the bail orders, the Court observed multiple procedural irregularities:

• The accused were released without any formal bail order, despite being deemed to be in the custody of the Court upon appearance through summons.

• The ACMM adopted a “simplistic approach”, stating that since the chargesheet had been filed, no useful purpose would be served by taking the accused into custody.

• The Investigating Officer did not seek custodial interrogation, a stance the Court criticised as “speaking volumes.” “We are unable to comprehend how, having formally surrendered before the Court, the accused were permitted to leave without any formal order of release,” the Court observed with surprise.

“Bordering on Perversity”: Supreme Court Slams Lower Courts

The bench described the approach of the ACMM as “untenable” and “bordering on perversity”, especially considering the accused's history of:

• Enjoying nearly four years of interim protection from arrest.

• Misleading the Delhi High Court.

• Concealing the rejection of their anticipatory bail while seeking regular bail.

• Violating undertakings given before the High Court to repay the defrauded amount.

The Court also criticised the Delhi High Court’s single judge for overlooking these glaring facts and declining to interfere with the bail.

Exceptional Case Demanding Deeper Scrutiny

The Court clarified that while pro-liberty principles remain fundamental, they cannot be applied mechanically, especially in serious economic offences and cases involving repeated abuse of judicial process. “Our observations herein are not whittling down pro-liberty principles but merely reiterating that courts below need to be cognisant of applying the same to the facts of the specific cases before them.”

The Court emphasised that precedents cannot be applied in vacuum, and the present case required exceptional scrutiny due to its complex factual matrix and the economic magnitude involved.

Directions to Delhi Police

The bench also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to conduct a personal enquiry into the role of the investigating officers for not seeking custodial interrogation. The Court noted that their conduct before the lower courts necessitated examination.

Background of the Case

The case stems from an FIR filed in 2018 by M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the accused couple Dharam Pal Singh Rathore and his wife induced the company to part with ₹1.90 crore under the pretext of selling land which was already mortgaged and later sold to third parties.

The total liability, with interest, is alleged to have crossed ₹6.25 crore. Though the couple secured interim protection in 2018, they defaulted on their undertakings given to the High Court, leading to rejection of their anticipatory bail in February 2023. The High Court had then recorded that the couple had “taken the court and the complainant for a ride.”

Despite this, regular bail was granted in November 2023 by the ACMM and subsequently upheld by the Sessions Court (August 2024) and later by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court (November 2024), prompting the complainant to approach the Supreme Court.

Holding that the lower courts failed to appreciate the gravity of the case and the conduct of the accused, the Supreme Court annulled the bail orders and issued corrective directives, reinforcing judicial accountability and procedural rigour in bail proceedings, especially in white-collar crimes.