Supreme Court: The present appeal challenges the impugned order dated 18-11-2024, whereby the appellant’s petition assailing the order dated 16-8-2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)-2/Special Judge (NDPS), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘Sessions Judge’) was dismissed. In the said order, the Sessions Judge had affirmed the bail granted to the accused persons by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ACMM’), Karkardooma Courts, East District, Delhi.
The Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ., stated that the manner in which bail was granted revealed certain procedural irregularities at the grassroots level of the judiciary, which should not be ignored. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18-11-2024 and the Session Judge’s order dated 16-8-2024. While refusing to turn a blind eye to the manner in which the ACMM granted bail to the accused and the Sessions Judge who refused to interfere with grant of bail, the Court stated that the Judicial Officers who passed the respective orders, should undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days.
Background
In the present case, the accusation against the accused persons was that they had taken Rs. 1,90,00,000 and promised to transfer certain land in the appellant’s favour. However, it was subsequently discovered that the said land had was previously mortgaged and sold to a third party. Upon being confronted, the accused persons refused to return the money with interest. Thus, the FIR was registered against the two accused.
It was submitted that both the accused had filed pre-arrest bail applications before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the accused persons approached the Delhi High Court (‘High Court’), which granted them interim protection, during which the matter was referred to mediation. During mediation proceedings, the accused gave an undertaking to pay the amount to the appellant. Eventually, the bail applications were rejected by the High Court vide order dated 1-2-2023.
Further, despite noting the observations by the High Court, the ACMM granted bail to the accused persons vide order dated 10-11-2023, only on the basis that the Charge sheet had been filed and there was no occasion for the accused persons to tamper with the evidence. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail, the appellant approached the Sessions Judge, which rejected its plea vide order dated 16-8-2024. The appellant then approached the High Court challenging the order dated 16-8-2024. However, the same was rejected by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 18-11-2024.
It was submitted that the impugned order goes on the erroneous presumption that the matter was related to cancellation of bail, whereas the issue essentially related to the conduct of the accused persons. It was pointed out that, in the earlier round before the High Court, the accused had undertaken to repay the amount. However, while enjoying interim protection for almost four years, they attempted to play smart with the High Court, on the pretext that as the Charge sheet had been filed, no purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars and pressed for grant of anticipatory bail, which, were dismissed. Thereafter, when they approached the ACMM seeking regular bail, they failed to disclose the fact that their anticipatory bail applications were rejected by the High Court, thereby concealing material facts from the said Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that bail matters are primarily to be adjudicated on the facts and circumstances, before applying any principle of law. The Court noted that when the ACMM had noted ‘peculiarity’ in the case, and that the bail applications ‘are not to be allowed mechanically’, it was surprising how the order passed by ACMM, was completely bereft of any examination. Further, the observation to the effect that ‘the grounds for considering an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and a bail application under Section 437 of CrPC are different.’ is ex-facie not totally correct.
The Court stated that the manner in which bail was granted revealed certain procedural irregularities at the grassroots level of the judiciary, which should not be ignored. The Court noted that in the present case, the accused persons appeared before the ACMM on 18-10-2023 for grant of bail. Thus, once the bail applications were taken up for hearing and the accused had appeared before the Court, they were deemed to be in the custody of the Court concerned, unless a specific order was passed directing their release. In the present case, no such release order was passed, yet the accused persons were not taken into custody. There was also no indication from the record that, upon their appearance before the Court, the couple were granted liberty till the final Order was passed.
The Court stated that it was unable to comprehend how, having formally surrendered before the Court, the accused were permitted to leave the Court without any formal order of release. Further, the High Court ought to have appreciated the background facts and not treated the matter merely as one seeking setting aside of/cancellation of bail. The Court stated that the present case exhibited an exceptional factual prism, impelling a deeper scrutiny beyond the conventional principles governing the subject. Unfortunately, the High Court also overlooked the germane factual position and saw the issue as merely being one of cancellation of bail.
Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18-11-2024 and the Session Judge’s order dated 16-8-2024. While refusing to turn a blind eye to the manner in which the ACMM granted bail to the accused and the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with grant of bail, the Court stated that the Judicial Officers who passed the orders dated 10-11-2023 and 16-8-2024, should undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days.
The Court requested Chief Justice of Delhi High Court 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 were involved and the level of weightage to be accorded thereto. The Court also directed Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to personally conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the Investigative Officers and take appropriate action, as deemed necessary.
[Netsity Systems (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2079, decided on 25-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Jitendra Sethi, Sr. Adv.; Keshav Sethi, Adv.; Bharat Kashyap, Adv.; Anmol Anand, AoR.
For the Respondents: S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G. (Sr. Adv.); Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv.; Shubham Prakash Mishra, Adv.; Subh Sharma, Adv.; Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AoR; Digvijay Dam, Adv.; B.K. Satija, Adv.; Santosh Kumar, Adv.; Aaditya Dixit, Adv.; Abhinav Mishra, Adv.; Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv.; Chayan Sarkar, AoR; Arshnit Sandhu, Adv.; Karan Bindra, Adv.; Rajesh Sharma, Adv.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
