E-Paper
SC orders Delhi judges to undergo training over bail in ₹1.9 cr fraud case
SC noted procedural lapses, including absence of interim release orders despite surrender; it held the high court also erred in upholding the bail in 2024.
In an unusual intervention, the Supreme Court has directed two Delhi judges to undergo a week-long “special judicial training” after faulting them for the manner in which they granted bail to two accused in a ₹1.9 crore cheating case, saying they had glossed over the binding weight of earlier superior court rulings.
A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti held that the additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) and the sessions judge at Karkardooma courts had “glossed over” crucial facts and binding precedents while releasing Dharam Pal Singh Rathore and his wife, Shiksha Rathore, on bail in November 2023 and August 2024.
The couple, accused of duping Netsity Systems Pvt Ltd of ₹1.9 crore in a fraudulent land deal, had previously been denied anticipatory bail by the Delhi high court, which had castigated them for misleading the courts and giving false undertakings.
“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…In the facts herein, we deem it appropriate that the judicial officers… shall undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days,” the bench said.
The court asked the chief justice of the Delhi high court to make arrangements at the Delhi Judicial Academy, with a focus on sensitising judges about how to deal with superior court rulings and weigh the conduct of accused persons. The chairperson of the Judicial Education & Training Programme Committee has also been asked to take note for future training modules.
The bench did not stop at judicial officers. It also ordered a personal inquiry by the Delhi police commissioner into the conduct of investigating officers (IOs) who had downplayed the need for custodial interrogation.
Taking strong exception to the stand of the IOs that custody was unnecessary once a charge sheet had been filed, the court directed the Delhi police commissioner to “personally conduct an enquiry” into their conduct and take action on priority.
In a telling remark, the Supreme Court said the reasoning adopted by the ACMM in granting bail “bordered on perversity,” noting that despite the high court’s damning findings in February 2023, which recorded the accused’s multiple false assurances and previous cheating cases, the magistrate had mechanically assumed that filing of a charge sheet ruled out custody. The sessions judge, the bench added, compounded the error by examining only the post-bail conduct of the accused rather than testing the legality of the ACMM’s order.
The bench also flagged procedural irregularities. Although the Rathores had appeared before the ACMM in October 2023 with bail pleas and were technically in court custody, no interim release order was ever passed. Yet they continued to walk free until bail was finally granted in November 2023 on furnishing bonds of ₹3 lakh each. “We are unable to comprehend how, having formally surrendered before the court, the accused were permitted to leave the court without any formal order of release,” the bench noted.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said the Delhi high court erred in treating the matter merely as one of cancellation of bail, holding that it ought to have appreciated the accused’s past conduct and the background facts before upholding the bail orders in November 2024.
Setting aside the orders of the ACMM, the sessions judge, and the Delhi high court, the bench cancelled the bail and directed the Rathores to surrender within two weeks.
“Our observations herein are not whittling down pro-liberty principles but merely reiterating that courts need to apply them to the facts of the specific case before them. No precedent operates in a vacuum,” the bench held.
