SC orders training for judges over lapses in bail rulings in Rs 1.9 crore fraud case

In an unusual move, the Supreme Court has directed two Delhi judicial officers to undergo a week-long training programme at the Delhi Judicial Academy after finding what it described as “serious lapses” in the handling of bail orders in a Rs 1.9 crore fraud case.

The order, delivered on 25 September, came as the top court allowed an appeal by M/S Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd challenging a series of bail decisions in favour of accused couple Shiksha Rathore and her husband. The bench quashed the bail initially granted by an additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM), which had been subsequently upheld by both a sessions judge and Delhi High Court. The accused have now been directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

Justices Sandeep Mehta and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, who authored the judgment, said the conduct of the lower courts could not be ignored. “Before parting, 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,” Justice Amanullah observed.

The court ruled that the ACMM, who issued the bail order on 10 November 2023, and the sessions judge, who upheld it on 16 August 2024, should each receive “special judicial training for a period of at least seven days”. The training, the court said, should particularly focus on how judicial officers ought to conduct proceedings where directions of superior courts are involved, and on the weight that must be accorded to such orders.

The bench requested the Delhi High Court chief justice to ensure appropriate arrangements are made for this sensitisation programme and directed that the chairperson of the Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee also be informed.

The Supreme Court’s censure was not limited to the judiciary. It also questioned the role of the investigating officer (IO), who had informed the courts below that custodial interrogation of the couple was unnecessary since the chargesheet had already been filed.

“We would not shut our eyes to the role(s) played by the IOs either. The stand(s) taken by them before the court(s) below speak volumes,” the judgment said. Directing accountability, the court ordered the commissioner of police, Delhi, to personally enquire into the conduct of the IOs and “take appropriate action, as deemed necessary”. The enquiry, it added, must be completed as a priority.

In addition, the ACMM has been instructed to fast-track the trial and bring the case to conclusion without delay. The apex court registry was told to forward a copy of the judgment to the registrar-general of Delhi High Court for immediate placement before the chief justice and the Judicial Education & Training Committee.

The case stems from a 2017 complaint by Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd, which alleged that Rathore and her husband had taken Rs 1.9 crore on the promise of transferring land. Investigations later revealed the land in question had already been mortgaged and subsequently sold to another party.

Following directions from the ACMM, an FIR was lodged at Preet Vihar Police Station in 2018. The accused then applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by a sessions court in December that year. However, later that month, Delhi High Court granted them interim protection from arrest — relief that continued for nearly four years.

During this period, mediation was attempted. The couple reportedly undertook to repay Rs 6.25 crore but failed to honour their commitment. Eventually, in February 2023, the high court rejected their anticipatory bail pleas.

Despite this, the ACMM granted the couple regular bail in November 2023, reasoning that custodial interrogation was no longer required given that the chargesheet had been filed. The order was upheld by the sessions court in August 2024, and in November the same year a single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed Netsity’s challenge.

The Supreme Court said both the trial and sessions courts had “oversimplified” the matter, disregarding the accused’s conduct and earlier judicial findings. It noted that the ACMM, despite being aware of the high court’s February 2023 order, wrongly assumed custody was pointless after filing of the chargesheet. The reasoning, the bench said, was “untenable” and “bordering on perversity.”

The judgment also flagged serious procedural irregularities, including the fact that the accused, after first appearing before the court, were allowed to walk free without any formal order of interim release until bail was granted a month later.

As for the Delhi High Court, the bench said it had erred in treating Netsity’s plea as an ordinary bail cancellation petition, when the circumstances — including repeated fraud allegations and breach of undertakings — warranted stricter judicial scrutiny.

With PTI inputs