SC Cancels Bail in Rs. 6.25 Cr Land Fraud Case, Orders Judicial Officers to Undergo Training

The bench observed, “Unfortunately, the High Court while passing the Impugned Order (November 18, 2024) also overlooked the germane factual position and saw the issue as merely being one of cancellation of bail".

Court said it would be failing in its duty if it ignored the manner in which the ACMM granted bail to the accused and the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with that order. The court stated, “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 bench directed the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, to arrange the training at the Delhi Judicial Academy, focusing particularly on sensitizing the Judicial Officers on how to conduct judicial proceedings, especially where decisions of the courts above are involved and the level of weightage to be accorded thereto.

Court also found that the high court's single judge wrongly rejected a plea for transferring the matter to the concerned judge who had previously declined anticipatory bail. The transfer was rejected on the grounds that the previous judge was sitting in a division bench due to a change of roster.

The bench held that this rejection of the plea was misplaced and not proper. Court stated, “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 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".

The bench added that even without a transfer order passed by any judge other than the concerned Chief Justice, the Registry of that court should not implement it until suitable or appropriate orders are passed by the Chief Justice. Court further clarified that when a transfer order is placed before the Chief Justice, it is for him/her to determine the appropriate bench, either by treating the matter as a special case, assigning it according to the prevailing roster, or even re-allocating the case to the same bench that had referred it.

The case arose from a complaint where the accused husband and wife, the Rathores, allegedly took Rs 1.90 Cr and promised to transfer certain land to the appellant, M/s Netsity Systems Private Ltd. It was later discovered that the land had been previously mortgaged and sold to a third party. When confronted, the respondents refused to return the money with interest, which the appellant claimed amounted to Rs 6.25 Cr. A complaint case order on April 03, 2018, led to the registration of a First Information Report on May 06, 2018, at Police Station Preet Vihar, East District, Delhi, against the couple.

The Supreme Court noted the accused's conduct in 2018 when they were granted protection based on their submission of willingness to settle or compromise the matter and pay an amount determined through mediation. However, after nearly four years, no fruitful result emerged, leading to the court's justified dismissal of their applications. Noting that the ACMM's order in 2023 "bordered on perversity", the bench held, “Bail matters are primarily to be adjudicated on the facts and circumstances, before applying any principle of law. In light of the glaring factual matrix, bail ought not to have been granted".

The bench underscored that the courts below must be aware of applying legal principles to the specific facts of the cases before them, stating, “No precedent operates in a vacuum and must be co-related to the extant facts”, citing Ashok Dhankad v State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) (delivered on August 13, 2025) and State of Karnataka v Sri Darshan, (2025) (delivered on August 14, 2025).

While there can be no dispute regarding the settled parameters for setting aside or cancelling bail, the bench pointed out, “it is surprising how the order by the ACMM of November 10, 2023 is completely bereft of any examination of the material available in the charge sheet against the accused".

The ACMM had itself noted that the ‘role of both the accused persons in the alleged incident of cheating has been clearly delineated in the charge sheet'. The Supreme Court further held that the ACMM's observation that 'the grounds for considering an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of CrPC and a bail application under Section 437 of CrPC were different’ was ex-facie not totally correct. The Sessions Judge, who observed ‘… it has not been argued that the accused persons have violated any of the conditions of bail,’ fell into error by looking to uphold the ACMM’s order by examining the post-bail conduct of the accused, the bench opined.

Noting the procedural irregularities in the grassroots judiciary, the bench said, “We are also constrained to observe 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".

Court also said it would not ignore the role played by the Investigating Officer (IO), as it was submitted that the custody of the accused was not required due to the filing of the charge sheet.

“The stand(s) taken by them before the Court(s) below speak volumes. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, is directed to personally conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the IOs and take appropriate action, as deemed necessary. Needful be done on a priority basis,” the bench directed. Court, accordingly, allowed the appeals filed by M/s Netsity Systems Private Ltd.

Case Title: M/s Netsity Systems Pvt Ltd Vs The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Judgment Date: September 25, 2025

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S V N Bhatti