Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1762

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
R1: The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
R2: Dharam Pal Singh Rathore
Criminal Appeal No. 4283 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) NO.4971 of 2025]
With
M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State NCT Of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
R1: The State NCT Of Delhi
R2: Shiksha Rathore
Criminal Appeal No.4284 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7587 of 2025]
Decided on : 25–09-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Keshav Sethi, Adv. Mr. Bharat Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Anmol Anand, AoR
For the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G. (Sr. Adv.) Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shubham Prakash Mishra, Adv. Mr. Subh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AoR Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Adv. For R1 Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chayan Sarkar, AoR Ms. Arshnit Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Karan Bindra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. For R2

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Grant or refusal to grant bail lies within discretion of court – No precedent operates in a vacuum and must be co-related to extant facts.
(2) Roster – It is not for any Court, while referring a matter to a Co-ordinate Bench, to consider composition in which that Bench is sitting, at the relevant time – That is sole prerogative of Chief Justice of Court concerned.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439[Section 483 of BNSS] – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Grant or refusal to grant bail lies within discretion of court – Grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by facts and circumstances of each particular case – But, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of sentiments of community against accused – Primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve accused of imprisonment, to relieve State of burden of keeping him, pending trial, and at the same time, to keep accused constructively in custody of court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to jurisdiction of court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required – Courts below need to be cognizant of applying the same to facts of specific cases before them – No precedent operates in a vacuum and must be co-related to extant facts – Under ordinary circumstances, where bail has been granted in absence of glaring facts, matter may not warrant reconsideration in light of judicial precedents – However, case at hand exhibits an exceptional factual prism, impelling deeper scrutiny beyond conventional principles governing the subject – Impugned Order passed by High Court, hereby quashed and set aside. (Paras 20, 21, 33 and 37)
(B) Rules of Judicial Business – Roster – It is not for any Court, while referring a matter to a Co-ordinate Bench, to consider composition in which that Bench is sitting, at the relevant time – That is sole prerogative of Chief Justice of Court concerned, in whom, alone, rests and vests power of constituting Benches, whether by way of a special order or in regular course – Even otherwise, de hors, whether or not an order of transfer is passed by any Judge other than concerned Chief Justice, Registry of that Court shall not give effect to the same, till suitable/appropriate orders are passed by Chief Justice – As and when any order of transfer is placed before Chief Justice, it is for him/her to determine appropriate Bench, either by treating the matter as a special case or by assigning it in accordance with prevailing roster, or even re-allocating the case to same Bench which had referred it. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
These twin appeals are directed against common Impugned Final Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi by which the petitions filed by the appellant against Order dated 16.08.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)-2/Special Judge (NDPS), upholding grant of bail to (respective) respondents no.2-accused and his co-accused wife by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, were dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
Registry is directed to communicate this Judgment to Registrar General, Delhi High Court, for being placed before Chief Justice and Chairperson, Judicial Education & Training Programme Committee, forthwith.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Grant or refusal of bail lies within the court's discretion, must be correlated to facts, and is regulated by the circumstances of each case (!) . - The primary purposes of bail are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, relieve the State of custodial burden, and ensure the accused's attendance at trial, while the right to bail is not to be denied merely due to community sentiment (!) . - An appeal against grant of bail can be entertained on grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of offence and impact of crime (!) . - After bail is granted, the conduct of the accused cannot be considered while hearing an appeal against the grant of bail; such grounds are for cancellation of bail applications (!) . - The court must weigh material collected during investigation and consider whether there is a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence before granting bail (!) . - A plea for transfer of a bail matter to a different judge solely on the ground of roster change is not proper, as constituting benches is the sole prerogative of the Chief Justice (!) . - Failure to record reasons for rejecting an anticipatory bail application, or proceeding mechanically without examining the factual matrix, can render the order unsustainable (!) . - Procedural irregularities include allowing bail without proper custody order, lack of appearance before the court, and not following the requirements of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (!) . - Judicial officers passing erroneous bail orders may be required to undergo special judicial training to sensitize them to considerations in bail matters (!) . - The trial court must examine whether there is any material in the charge-sheet indicating a fit case for bail, and cannot mechanically rely on the filing of a charge-sheet (!) . Important: The above points are extracted directly from the judgment and are limited to a maximum of 10 points.

What is the scope of judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail under Section 437 of the CrPC?

What are the permissible grounds for an appeal against grant of bail?

What procedural irregularities invalidate a bail grant or its continuation?

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned senior counsel and/or counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted in both petitions.

THE IMPUGNED ORDER:

3. These twin appeals are directed against the common Impugned Final Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Crl. M. C. Nos.8956/2024 and 8957/2024 by which the petitions filed by the appellant against the Order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)-2/Special Judge (NDPS), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sessions Judge’), upholding the grant of bail to the (respective) respondents no.2-accused and his co-accused wife by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, East District, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ACMM’), were dismissed by the High Court.

4. The appellant is the complainant in Complaint Case No.4142/2017 filed before the ACMM.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the accusation against the accused husband and his co-accused wife was that they had taken Rs.1,90,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Lakhs) 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 refused to return the money with interest, which the appellant claimed amounted to Rs.6,25,00,000/-(Rupees Six Crores Twenty-Five Lakhs). The Order dated 03.04.2018 in Complaint Case No.4142/2017 led to the registration of First Information Report No.81/2018 dated 06.05.2018 at Police Station Preet Vihar, East District, Delhi against the two accused.

6. It was submitted that both the accused had filed pre-arrest bail applications bearing Bail Applications No.2260/2018 and 2261/2018 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ-04) (East), Karkardooma Courts, on 10.12.2018. The said applications were dismissed vide Order dated 11.12.2018. Thereafter, the private respondents approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, which granted them interim protection vide Order dated 21.12.2018 in Bail Applications No.3058/2018 and 3068/2018. This interim protection continued for almost four years, during which the matter was referred to mediation. In the course of the mediation proceedings, the private respondents gave an undertaking to pay Rs.6,25,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty-Five Lakhs) to the appellant. Ultimately, Bail Applications No.3058/2018 and 3068/2018 were rejected by the High Court by Order dated 01.02.2023 [2023:DHC:747 | 2023 SCC OnLine Del 599]. While rejecting these applications, the High Court recorded in detail the conduct of the respondents:

the contention of learned counsel for applicants that since charge-sheet has been filed without arrest, now, no purpose will be served to send the applicants behind the bar is also without merit. In case this plea is accepted, it will amount to giving liberty to an accused in economic offences to first appear before the Court, give an undertaking that he will make payment of the amount due before the court of law including this Court and obtain interim protection on that ground and thereafter, after years of enjoying the interim protection, a statement will be made that he will not make the payment being unable to do so and as a matter of right, will ask to be granted bail on the ground that now charge-sheet has been filed and his custody is not required. In this regard, this Court is of the opinion that it would rather amount to giving liberty to an accused to first mislead the Courts by giving an undertaking that payment will be made & thereafter, despite such undertaking for years, as in the present case for more than three years, acc