Supreme Court Orders Two Delhi Judicial Officers To Undergo 'Special Training' For 'Perverse' Order Granting Bail

The Supreme Court recently directed that two Judicial Officers in the Delhi Judicial Service must undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days for the illegal and erroneous manner in which they granted bail to two accused.

While setting aside the bail granted to a couple accused in a multi-crore scam, the Court directed the judicial officers who passed the impugned bail orders -the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who granted bail and the Karkardooma Sessions Judge who refused to interfere with it - to undergo "special judicial training" of at least seven days. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been requested to make arrangements, with a focus on sensitising judicial officers on how to conduct proceedings and the deference to be accorded to superior court rulings.

The learned Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, is requested to make appropriate arrangements for such training at the Delhi Judicial Academy, with particular focus on sensitizing the Judicial Officers on how to conduct judicial proceedings, particularly in matters where decisions of Superior Courts are involved and the level of weightage to be accorded thereto.

Calling the judicial officers' approach “untenable” and bordering on “perversity”, the bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti observed that the accused had misled the Delhi High Court while enjoying four years of interim protection and later concealed the rejection of their anticipatory bail applications while seeking regular bail. 

The Supreme Court was critical of the ACMM granting bail on  a "simplistic approach" that, since chargesheet has been filed, no useful purpose would be served by taking the accused into custody. In this regard, the Court also faulted the Investigating Officer for not seeking custody. The Court observed that such an approach was "untenable" as it glossed over the dishonest conduct shown by the accused over the years, including the violations of the earlier undertakings given to the High Court while enjoying interim protection.

The Court also noted procedural irregularities, including the fact that the accused, who appeared as per summons, were allowed to be released without any formal order granting bail. The Court pointed out that once the accused appears, they are deemed to be in the formal custody of the Court, and they cannot be released without any formal order allowing such release.

"We are unable to comprehend how, having formally surrendered before the Court, the accused were permitted to leave the Court without any formal order of release," the Court expressed surprise.

The Court stated that it would be failing in its duty if it did not comment upon the conduct of the judicial officers.

"We have deliberately adopted a mild mannerism in describing the ACMM's Order dated 10.11.2023, even as the consideration adopted therein borders on the perversity...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 judgment authored by Justice Amanullah stated.

In addition, the bench directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to conduct a personal enquiry into the role of the investigating officers, who did not insist on custodial interrogation, observing that their stance before the lower courts “spoke volumes”.

The Court observed that the "case at hand exhibits an exceptional factual prism, impelling a deeper scrutiny beyond the conventional principles governing the subject."

Bail orders dependent on each specific facts and circumstances; precedents can't be applied in vacuum

“Our observations herein are not whittling down pro-liberty principles but merely reiterating that the Courts below need to be cognisant of applying the same to the facts of the specific cases before them.” the Court said, stressing that liberty principles cannot be applied mechanically in cases involving serious economic offences and repeated misuse of court processes.

The bench emphasised that while pro-liberty principles are important, they must be applied to the specific facts of the case. Given the exceptional factual matrix huge economic magnitude, repeated similar FIRs against the accused, earlier High Court findings about misuse of interim protection, and procedural gaps at the trial level, the Court concluded that the lower courts' approach was unsustainable.

The case arose out of a complaint filed 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 on the promise of transferring certain land, which was later discovered to be already mortgaged and sold to third parties. Netsity claimed the liability swelled to over ₹6.25 crore with interest. An FIR was registered in 2018 at Preet Vihar Police Station. The accused secured interim protection in December 2018, which continued for nearly four years while the matter was referred to mediation. During this period, they gave undertakings before the Delhi High Court to repay the amounts but later resiled from them. Their anticipatory bail pleas were eventually dismissed by the High Court in February 2023, which recorded that they had “taken the court and the complainant for a ride.”

Despite this, in November 2023, the ACMM at Karkardooma granted them regular bail after filing of the chargesheet, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge in August 2024 and later by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in November 2024, prompting Netsity to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also criticised the Delhi High Court for overlooking the factual position and declining interference.  

Case : M/s Netisty Systems Pvt Ltd v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 962

Click here to read the judgment