Manner Of Granting Bail Reveals Procedural Irregularities At Grassroots Level Of Judiciary: Supreme Court Directs Judicial Officers To Undergo Special Training

The Supreme Court has directed some Judicial Officers to undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven (7) days on account of the manner in which bail was granted to the accused in a case.

The Court was hearing twin Criminal Appeals preferred by a company against the common final Order of the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “The manner in which bail was granted also reveals certain procedural irregularities at the grassroots level of the judiciary, which we should not ignore. … Cognizance was taken by the ACMM vide Order dated 28.03.2023 (12.20 pm) and summons were issued to the accused. On 09.08.2023, the accused sought, and were granted time to file bail applications. accused duo, it is stated, appeared before the ACMM on 18.10.2023 with pleas for grant of bail.”

The Bench said that technically, 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 – either on regular basis or in the interim.

Senior Advocate Jitendra Sethi appeared for the Appellant while ASG S.D. Sanjay, Senior Advocates Nachiketa Joshi, and Shoeb Alam appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

Petitions were filed by the Appellant before the High Court, challenging the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) who had upheld the grant of bail to the respective Respondents (accused persons). The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) had granted bail to them. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said Petitions and hence, the Appellant was before the Apex Court. The senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that the accusation against the accused husband and his co-accused wife was that they had allegedly taken Rs. 1,90,00,000/- and promised to transfer certain land in favour of the Appellant.

However, it was subsequently discovered that the said land had not only been previously mortgaged but had also been sold to a third-party. Upon being confronted, the Respondents allegedly refused to return the money with interest. Hence, this led to the registration of an FIR against them. It was contended that despite noting the observations in the Order of the High Court, the ACMM still proceeded to grant bail only on the basis that the chargesheet was filed and there was no occasion for the accused persons to tamper with the evidence.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Having examined the matter in extenso and taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the present cases, we are of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order, the Sessions Judge’s Order dated 16.08.2024 as also the ACMM’s Order dated 10.11.2023 cannot be sustained.”

The Court remarked that the ACMM, despite being made aware of the High Court’s Order and even noting the same, proceeded on the simplistic premise that since the chargesheet had been submitted, no useful purpose would be served by taking the accused into custody, particularly as the stand taken by the Investigating Officer (IO) was that custodial interrogation was not required.

“Such reasoning, in our view, is untenable, inasmuch as the same glossed over the private respondents’ conduct, including undertakings made before a higher Court viz. the High Court. … We have deliberately adopted a mild mannerism in describing the ACMM’s Order dated 10.11.2023, even as the consideration adopted therein borders on the perversity”, it added.

The Court emphasised that bail matters are primarily to be adjudicated on the facts and circumstances, before applying any principle of law and in light of the glaring factual matrix, bail ought not to have been granted.

“… grant or denial of bail is regulated by the accompanying facts and circumstances. … Our observations herein are not whittling down pro-liberty principles but merely reiterating that the Courts below need to be cognisant of applying the same to the facts of the specific cases before them. No precedent operates in a vacuum and must be co-related to the extant facts”, it said.

The Court asked as to how, having formally surrendered before the Court, the accused were permitted to leave the Court without any formal order of release.

“On perusal of Orders passed by the ACMM between 18.10.2023 to 10.11.2023 (enumerated supra), we do not see any order of release or of even a bond having been taken under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”, it further remarked.

The Court said that 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 simpliciter.

“Under ordinary circumstances, where bail has been granted in the absence of glaring facts such as those recorded above, the matter may not warrant reconsideration in light of judicial precedents. However, as the preceding analysis would demonstrate, the case at hand exhibits an exceptional factual prism, impelling a deeper scrutiny beyond the conventional principles governing the subject”, it also observed.

The Court noted that the High Court while passing the impugned Order also overlooked the germane factual position and saw the issue as merely being one of cancellation of bail.

“… it is not for any Court, while referring a matter to a co-ordinate Bench, to consider the composition in which that Bench is sitting, at the relevant time. That is the sole prerogative of the learned Chief Justice of the Court concerned, in whom, alone, rests and vests the power of constituting Benches, whether by way of a special order or in regular course”, it elucidated.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court, therefore, refused to remit the matters for being decided afresh and directed the Respondents-accused to surrender before the ACMM within two weeks.

“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. In the facts herein, we deem it appropriate that the Judicial Officers who passed the Orders dated 10.11.2023 and 16.08.2024 shall undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days. The learned Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, is requested 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 are involved and the level of weightage to be accorded thereto. The learned Judge chairing the Judicial Education & Training Programme Committee, Delhi High Court be also apprised of this Judgment”, it directed.

Moreover, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to personally conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the IOs and take appropriate action, as deemed necessary, on a priority basis.

“The ACMM shall proceed to conduct the trial and endeavour to bring it to conclusion with expedition. … Registry is directed to communicate this Judgment to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, for being placed before the learned Chief Justice and the learned Chairperson, Judicial Education & Training Programme Committee, forthwith”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals.

Cause Title- M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1181)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Jitendra Sethi, AOR Anmol Anand, Advocates Keshav Sethi, and Bharat Kashyap.

Respondents: ASG S.D. Sanjay, Senior Advocates Nachiketa Joshi, Shoeb Alam, AORs Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Chayan Sarkar, Advocates Shubham Prakash Mishra, Subh Sharma, Digvijay Dam, B.K. Satija, Santosh Kumar, Aaditya Dixit, Abhinav Mishra, Arshnit Sandhu, Karan Bindra, and Rajesh Sharma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment