The Supreme Court has overturned the bail orders granted to the accused in a fraud case and strongly criticized the handling of the bail applications by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and Sessions Judge. The court has mandated that both judicial officers undergo specialized training for at least seven days.
Pointing out the irregularities in the bail grant by the ACMM and the failure of the Sessions Judge to intervene, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for training for these Judicial Officers based on the case’s circumstances. The Court was hearing appeals against the Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold the bail granted by the ACMM and Sessions Judge at Karkardooma Courts.
The accused couple is facing charges for allegedly accepting Rs 1.9 crore for a land transfer, which was later discovered to have been mortgaged and sold to a third party. Following their refusal to return the money, an FIR was lodged against them. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been urged to organize training sessions at the Delhi Judicial Academy to sensitize Judicial Officers on conducting judicial proceedings, especially concerning decisions of Superior Courts.
The Court highlighted the need to scrutinize the roles of Investigating Officers (IOs) and directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to conduct a thorough inquiry into the IOs’ conduct and take prompt action. The Court criticized the bail considerations made by the ACMM, labeling the orders as unjustifiable, and emphasized the importance of deciding bail matters based on factual circumstances before applying legal principles.
Despite affirming the importance of pro-liberty principles, the Supreme Court stressed the necessity for lower courts to apply these principles to the specific case facts. The Court expressed surprise over the bail order dated November 10, 2023, for not examining the material presented in the chargesheet against the accused, highlighting procedural irregularities in the judiciary.
The Court also raised concerns about the absence of formal records showing the accused’s release before the final order and questioned their departure without official release. In a departure from the norm, the Court emphasized the need for deeper scrutiny due to the unique circumstances of the case. The prosecution informed the court that the accused have a history of fraud and are involved in multiple cases.
Moreover, the accused had previously obtained interim protection in 2019 with the promise to mediate, but no progress has been made since then. The Court concluded by stating that the bail granted lacked clarity on facts and warranted further investigation beyond standard legal principles.