Supreme Court
Credit: iStock Photo
New Delhi: In a judgment, the Supreme Court has directed for holding seven days training for two Delhi court judges, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Judge here over their flawed order, granting bail to a couple, who faced in a Rs 6 crore cheating case.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S V N Bhatti came down heavily upon the two judicial officers, emphasising the bail matters must turn on facts and conduct, and not mechanical reasoning.
"Bail matters are primarily to be adjudicated on the facts and circumstances, before applying any principle of law. In light of the glaring factual matrix, bail ought not to have been granted," the bench held on September 25, 2025.
The court said it would be failing in its duty if it 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 judicial officers who passed the orders dated 10.11.2023 and 16.08.2024 shall undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days," the court ordered.
It asked the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court to make appropriate arrangements for such training at the Delhi Judicial Academy, with particular focus on sensitising the duo 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.
The court also ordered the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to personally conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the Investigating Officers and take appropriate action, as deemed necessary.
The court quashed the bail granted to the couple Dharam Pal Singh Rathore and Shiksha Rathore, accused of duping appellant company M/s Netsity Systems Pvt Ltd in the name transferring certain land in its favour. The FIR was lodged in 2018 on a direction issued in a complaint case.
Unfortunately, the court pointed out, the High Court while passing its order also overlooked the germane factual position and saw the issue as merely being one of cancellation of bail.
In the case, the bench also noted the High Court, in a previous round of litigation, sent the matter for mediation as the accused claimed that they were willing to settle the matter and would pay an amount, as might be determined.
"However, despite the lapse of close to four years, no fruitful result emerged from the mediation process, and in the end, after the charge sheet was submitted, the anticipatory bail applications were dismissed," the bench pointed out.