Supreme Court: In batch of applications filed by allottees of the ‘Grand Venice’ project, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner (Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (BIIPL)), in connection with FIRs alleging non-delivery of units, siphoning of funds collected from investors, and irregularities in allotment of land allegedly in collusion with public officials, on the ground of violations of certain bail conditions imposed upon him, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and instructed him to surrender within 1 week from the date of this judgment.
Background
The detailed the trajectory of the present proceedings could be traced from the grant of bail on 06 November 2019, in respect of all FIRs pertaining to the ‘Grand Venice’ project, subject to stringent conditions. Among the most significant conditions were that — the petitioner should not commit similar offences; not tamper with evidence; deposit ₹50 crores as a pre-condition; and “make every possible attempt to settle the claims of the concerned complainants” within 6 to 8 months. It was further provided that upon intentional breach, at least 50% of the deposited amount would stand forfeited.
The condition relating to settlement was not an ancillary condition but formed the core basis for grant of bail, as was evident from the contemporaneous order of the Patiala House Court, which had also recorded the petitioner’s undertaking to either hand over possession with clear title or refund the money within a stipulated period.
Subsequent applications seeking modification of conditions were largely rejected. The Court declined to waive the requirement of deposit of ₹50 crores and only modified the surety condition. The deposited amount was directed to be invested in an interest-bearing scheme.
Thereafter, the Court facilitated mediation by directing the parties to approach the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. The petitioner gave assurances that the mediation process would be taken to its “earliest logical conclusion.” The Court also recorded that homebuyers were free to accept offers of possession or execution of agreements.
In 2022, the Court exercised powers under Article 142 and consolidated all FIRs into a principal FIR (No. 353/2015), observing that multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest.
When the writ petition was finally disposed of by order dated 8 August 2023, the Court refused to permit withdrawal of the ₹50 crores, holding that the petitioner “cannot have it both ways.” Importantly, the Court consciously left open the question of breach of bail conditions and granted liberty to the allottees to seek cancellation of bail.
Development after grant of bail
The Court noted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) were initiated against the petitioner’s companies under Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed.
The Court noted that the IRP submitted that despite statutory mandate, the petitioner had not handed over control of the company and continued to manage its affairs. It was further alleged that even after imposition of moratorium, funds to the tune of ₹74 crores were siphoned off to related entities. The petitioner attempted to justify these transactions as routine business dealings, but no material was placed to substantiate such a claim.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s objection that IRP should not be heard, observing that the IRP is the statute-mandated in-charge and custodian of the petitioner’s company’s affairs and its submissions are directly relevant to the allegations of mismanagement and siphoning which form part of the FIRs.
The Court noted that the land had been allotted to the petitioner for a composite project with specific lease conditions, including execution of tripartite sub-lease deeds and completion of construction within a stipulated time.
The Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) asserted that the petitioner had failed to complete the project, had not submitted a final list of allottees, and had defaulted in payment of substantial dues, including additional FAR charges. It was further submitted that despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner never called upon UPSIDA to execute tripartite deeds, and the delay was entirely attributable to him. The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the property was complete and that UPSIDA had created impediments. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had neither obtained a final completion certificate nor cleared dues, and therefore his stand lacked credibility.
Court’s Analysis
The Court referred to Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690 and reiterated that while grant of bail and cancellation operate on different considerations, post-bail conduct is a valid ground for cancellation.
-
Condition of deposit of ₹50 crores
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the deposit condition and found that the ₹50 crores deposited as a pre-condition for bail did not come from the petitioner’s personal funds but from BIIPL and related entities.
No board resolution was passed authorising such transactions, nor was any special resolution obtained as required under Section 185, Companies Act, 2013. The Court observed that not a single rupee had been contributed from the petitioner’s personal funds and that the arrangement lacked any bona fide commercial structure, including absence of security or safeguards.
The Court held that the condition requiring deposit was imposed on the petitioner in his individual capacity and therefore required bona fide compliance. The use of company funds, without statutory compliance, constituted a clear violation. The Court further held that provisions relating to fraudulent transactions under insolvency law would apply, and the objection of limitation raised by the petitioner was untenable.
The Court rejected the argument that no objection had been raised earlier and accepted the IRP’s contention that such transactions could be examined as fraudulent under the IBC. The Court decided the issue against the petitioner.
-
Construction not complete
The Court relied on the UPSIDA inspection report, which revealed that the project was far from complete. Basic amenities such as drinking water were absent, only one lift was functional, fire safety systems were non-operational, and the units were not in a habitable condition.
The Court noted that these findings, coupled with the Observer Report and the Committee Report, demonstrated that the petitioner’s claim of readiness to hand over possession was not genuine. The Court held that incomplete construction directly undermined the petitioner’s obligation to settle claims, and reflected lack of bona fide intention.
-
No settlement and no intent to do so
The Court then addressed the core condition of bail, i.e., settlement of claims and noted that despite lapse of more than 6 years, the petitioner failed to settle claims of all investors. Even in cases where settlement was claimed, compliance was incomplete or disputed.
The Court noted that repeated opportunities had been granted “only by way of indulgence,” yet the petitioner failed to demonstrate genuine effort. It found the shifting of blame onto allottees and UPSIDA to be unacceptable.
The Court held that there was no genuine or bona fide effort to settle claims, and the conduct of petitioner indicated absence of intent to do so.
-
Conduct with specific allottees
Upon examining affidavits of individual allottees, the Court found that many investors who were shown as “settled” had not received possession, refund, or execution of documents. Several agreements remained unimplemented for years. It was asserted that this revealed a pattern where settlements were either illusory or incomplete. It was held that such conduct amounted to misrepresentation and further established breach of bail conditions.
-
Commission of similar offence
The Court also took note of the large number of FIRs pending against the petitioner, approximately 190, relating to similar allegations. The Court stated that this indicated that the petitioner had continued to engage in similar conduct even after grant of bail. It found such conduct to be in direct violation of the condition that the petitioner should not commit offences of similar nature.
Court’s Decision
Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the material placed on record, the reports of the Committee, the submissions of the IRP, UPSIDA, and the allottees, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions of bail “both in letter and spirit.” The deposit condition was violated through unlawful use of company funds; the condition of settlement remained unfulfilled despite passage of years; the project itself was incomplete; and the conduct of the petitioner demonstrated lack of bona fide intention.
The Court noted that despite the passage of more than 6 years, the petitioner had not been able to bring about a complete or meaningful resolution of the claims of the investors. Even in cases where settlements were projected, the material on record revealed that such settlements were either incomplete, conditional, or remained unimplemented.
A significant aspect that weighed with the Court was the absence of bona fide intent. The conduct of the petitioner was found to be evasive and, at times, obstructive. It also attached considerable weight to the financial conduct of the petitioner, particularly the manner in which the condition of depositing ₹50 crores had been complied with. Another factor which weighed heavily with the Court was the continuing pattern of conduct.
Having regard to the cumulative effect of these factors, the Court held that the petitioner had misused the liberty of bail and had failed to honour the conditions upon which such liberty was granted. Accordingly, the Court —
-
Cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and instructed the petitioner to surrender within 1 week from the date of this judgment.
-
Allowed the petitioner apply for regular bail afresh after 12 months subject to full compliance with the orders passed in the insolvency proceedings.
-
Directed the trial court to not release the petitioner’s passport without the leave of this Court.
-
Forfeited the entire amount deposited by petitioner i.e., Rs. 50 crores plus the accrued interest.
-
Directed that out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 5 crores plus proportionate accrued interest be transmitted to the National Legal Services Authority.
-
Directed to transmit the remaining amount along with proportionate accrued interest to the IRP for the purposes of the IBC proceedings.
-
Directed the Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of India, to ensure immediate compliance by the trial court in disbursal of the above amounts.
[Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 521, decided on 2-4-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Karol
