Supreme Court Quashes Multiple Bail Orders and Directs Surrender in High‑Value Cheating Case

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti heard appeals challenging the continuation and cancellation of bail granted to two accused in a high‑value cheating prosecution, arising out of allegations that land sale assurances induced payment of over ₹1.90 crore and subsequent refusal to refund monies and interest leading to a claim of about ₹6.25 crore.

The Court allowed the appeals and held that the orders of the trial Magistrate, the Sessions Judge and the High Court could not be sustained in view of the totality of circumstances and the conduct of the accused. The Court emphasised that the factual matrix and the antecedent conduct of the accused before the High Court were material in adjudicating bail and that lower courts had failed to apply their minds to the material in the chargesheet. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 first and foremost reason which has persuaded this Court to interfere is the conduct of the accused before the High Court in the first round of litigation, when their applications for grant of anticipatory bail were being considered.” The Court quashed the impugned orders, directed the private respondents to surrender within two weeks, and ordered that trial proceed expeditiously. It also directed judicial training for the officers who passed the impugned orders and ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the investigating officers.

Background

The dispute arose from Complaint Case No.4142/2017 in which the complainant alleged that the accused couple induced him to pay ₹1,90,00,000 by promising transfer of certain land, which was later found mortgaged and sold to a third party; the complainant claimed unpaid principal with accumulated interest to the tune of approximately ₹6,25,00,000. FIR No.81/2018 was registered on 06.05.2018. The accused had earlier sought anticipatory bail; interim protection was granted in December 2018 and continued through mediation proceedings in 2019, during which undertakings were given to deposit interest and explore settlement. The High Court ultimately dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions on 01.02.2023, recording concerns that the accused had “misled the Courts by giving false undertakings” and noting previous similar FIRs and convictions.

Thereafter the accused approached the trial court for regular bail; the ACMM granted bail on 10.11.2023 on the basis that the charge‑sheet was filed and no custodial interrogation was required. The Sessions Judge and later the High Court declined to set aside that grant. The appellant (complainant) challenged those orders before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court analysed precedent including Sanjay Chandra (pro‑liberty principles), Rahul Gupta, and more recent decisions clarifying the scope for interference in bail matters. The Court held that while pro‑liberty principles remain vital, they must be applied to the facts and that a superior court may interfere where relevant factors—including the accused’s antecedents, prior conduct before superior courts, and failure of lower courts to examine chargesheet material—were overlooked. The Court found procedural irregularities in the trial court’s handling (not taking accused into custody on appearance, absence of any interim release order) and observed that the ACMM and Sessions Judge had failed to examine the chargesheet material despite noting that the accused’s roles were “clearly delineated” therein. The Court ordered: the impugned orders were quashed and set aside; the private respondents were to surrender to the ACMM within two weeks; the ACMM was to expedite trial; the Delhi High Court was requested to arrange a seven‑day special judicial training for the judicial officers who passed the impugned orders; and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi was directed to inquire into the conduct of the investigation officers.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos.4283 & 4284 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos.4971 & 7587 of 2025) Case Title: M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Learned senior counsel for the complainant (as appearing in Court; specific names not indicated in the judgment) For the Respondent(s): Learned Additional Solicitor General for the State and learned senior counsel for the accused (specific names not indicated in the judgment)