The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a couple accused of duping a company called Netsity Systems of ₹6 crore, as it came down heavily on the lower courts for overlooking the duo’s involvement in multiple offences of the same nature.
The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti also asked the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to send the trial judge and sessions judge of the Karkardooma Courts to the Delhi Judicial Academy for a one-week “training”.
“The case at hand exhibits an exceptional factual prism, impelling a deeper scrutiny beyond the conventional principles governing the subject. Unfortunately, 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.
“On an overall conspectus, the ACMM’s (additional chief metropolitan magistrate) Order dated November 10, 2023, the sessions judge’s order dated August 16, 2024, as well as the impugned order dated November 18, 2024, passed by the high court, are hereby quashed and set aside,” the apex court said in a written order.
It said the top court “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”.
The bench said the judicial officers who passed the orders in November 2023 and August 2024 should undergo special judicial training for 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 sensitising 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,” it added.
The couple had allegedly taken ₹1.9 crore and promised to transfer a plot of land in favour of the appellant company. However, it was subsequently found that the land had not only been previously mortgaged but had also been sold to a third party. After being confronted, the respondents refused to return the money with interest, which the appellant claimed amounted to ₹6.2 crore.