APEX COURT EXPRESSED DISPLEASURE OVER THE BAIL GRANTED TO A COUPLE, ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO TWO DELHI JUDGES

APEX COURT EXPRESSED DISPLEASURE OVER THE BAIL GRANTED TO A COUPLE, ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO TWO DELHI JUDGES

30-SEP-ENG 4

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

DELHI-------------------------The Supreme Court has expressed strong displeasure over the flaws in the lower court's bail grant process for the accused in a ₹6 crore fraud case. The case relates to Delhi's Karkardooma Court, where the court has directed two judges to undergo special training.

The Supreme Court has expressed strong displeasure over the lower court's bail grant to a couple accused in a ₹6 crore fraud case. The accused couple are accused of defrauding a private company. The Supreme Court has not only rejected the bail orders in this case, but has also directed two judges of a lower court in Delhi to undergo at least seven days of training at the Delhi Judicial Academy. The accused couple has been directed to surrender within two weeks.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bharati found that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and Sessions Judge of the Karkardooma Court failed to follow the prescribed procedure for granting or withholding bail for the accused. The court directed both judicial officers to undergo at least seven days of training at the Delhi Judicial Academy. The court also ordered a departmental inquiry into the actions of the Investigating Officer (IO), citing several serious lapses on the part of the police. The court stated that the Investigating Officer's stance during the bail process "speaks volumes." The court ordered the Delhi Police Commissioner to conduct a personal investigation into the IO's role and take necessary action. The case involves a private company. It is alleged that the accused couple received ₹1.9 crore from the company for a land deal, but later discovered that the land had already been sold and mortgaged. Following this revelation, the accused refused to return the company's money. The company claims that the amount, including interest, exceeded ₹6 crore.

An FIR was filed in this case in 2018 based on the company's complaint in 2017. The Delhi High Court subsequently rejected their anticipatory bail plea in 2023, making strong comments about their conduct. The court stated that the couple misled the court by giving false undertakings to return the money. Despite this, in November 2023, the ACMM court granted regular bail to the accused couple. The court argued that custody was not necessary after the charge sheet was filed. In August 2024, the Sessions Court upheld that order, and the Delhi High Court declined to interfere.

The Supreme Court stated that lower courts did not consider the accused's conduct and ignored the High Court's earlier observations. The bench stated that bail matters should be decided on the basis of facts and conduct, not mechanical reasoning. The Supreme Court also highlighted procedural irregularities in the case. The court noted that the accused formally appeared before a magistrate in October 2023, but was released from court without an interim release order, even though bail was granted in November. The court also set aside the bail orders of the ACMM, Sessions Judge, and High Court and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks.