Seeing series of flaws, the Supreme Court (SC)recently came down heavily on the manner in which bail was granted to a couple accused of duping a private company of over Rs 6 crore. 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 top court in its order dated September 25, uploaded on Monday, 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 Rs 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 Rs 6 crore. The FIR was registered in 2018 and 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 top 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. 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 and directed the Commissioner of Police of Delhi to complete the inquiry against the investigating officer on priority.