The Supreme Court has delivered a stern judgment in a high-profile cheating case, setting aside the bail orders that had earlier been granted to the accused couple. The apex court strongly criticised the conduct of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and the Sessions Judge, stating that the manner in which the bail applications were handled reflected grave irregularities. Observing that it would be failing in its duty if it ignored these lapses, the court ordered both judicial officers to undergo a minimum of seven days of special judicial training. The training, to be organised under the guidance of the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court at the Delhi Judicial Academy, will focus on sensitising judicial officers about proper judicial procedures, the importance of respecting superior court decisions, and the need to weigh evidence and circumstances before granting bail.
The case revolved around allegations that the accused couple had taken a sum of ₹1.9 crore under the pretext of transferring land. However, investigations later revealed that the land in question was already mortgaged and had subsequently been sold to a third party. When the couple refused to return the money, an FIR was registered. Despite the seriousness of these allegations, the ACMM granted bail, and the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with that decision. The Supreme Court expressed shock that the bail order dated November 10, 2023, did not even evaluate the material contained in the chargesheet, nor did it adequately take into account the prosecution’s contentions. The court described the bail orders as “perverse” and stressed that bail decisions must rest on the facts and circumstances of each case rather than being passed mechanically in the name of pro-liberty principles.
The bench also raised concerns about procedural lapses in how the bail order was executed. It found no record to show that the accused were formally released in accordance with the final order, yet they were allowed to walk free. Such procedural irregularities, according to the court, expose deep-rooted flaws at the grassroots level of the judiciary that cannot be brushed aside. The Supreme Court also remarked that while bail orders based on incomplete facts often go unchallenged, in this case, the seriousness of the allegations, the failure of the judicial officers to examine the chargesheet, and the possibility of habitual offending required deeper judicial scrutiny.
The court also turned its attention to the role of the Investigating Officers (IOs), remarking that the positions they took before the lower courts “speak volumes” about their conduct. Consequently, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has been directed to personally conduct an inquiry into their handling of the case and to take corrective measures on priority. The court also took note of the prosecution’s submission that the accused couple were habitual offenders, having been convicted in two previous cases and facing at least six more. Furthermore, the accused had earlier secured interim protection in 2019 by agreeing to explore mediation, but nearly four years had passed without any progress being made.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasised that its observations should not be misinterpreted as weakening the principle of liberty in bail jurisprudence. Instead, the decision serves as a reminder that judicial officers must apply pro-liberty principles carefully in light of the specific facts of each case. It concluded that, given the nature of the allegations, the evidence on record, and the background of the accused, bail should not have been granted in the first place. By setting aside the bail orders and calling for accountability among both judicial and police officers, the court sought to uphold the integrity of judicial processes and ensure that justice is not compromised through carelessness or procedural lapses.
