Supreme Court directs training for Delhi judges over 'serious lapses' in bail orders

The verdict also directed that the judge chairing the Judicial Education & Training Programme Committee, Delhi High Court, should also be apprised of it.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed two judicial officers to undergo mandatory training for seven days at the Delhi Judicial Academy after outlining “serious lapses” in bail orders in an alleged fraud case of Rs 1.9 crore.

The order asking an additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) and a sessions judge to undergo training at the academy was passed in a verdict by the top court by which it allowed the appeal of M/S Netsity Systems Pvt Ltd against a series of bail orders that had gone in favour of the accused couple, Shiksha Rathore and her husband.

Quashing the bail granted by the ACMM, which was later upheld by the sessions court and the Delhi High Court, the bench, in its September 25 judgement, asked the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

“Before parting, 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 with such grant of bail," Justice Amanullah, who authored the verdict, said.

The judgment went on, “We deem it appropriate that the judicial officers who passed the orders dated November 10, 2023 and August 16, 2024 shall undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days."

The top court requested the Delhi High Court chief justice to make "appropriate arrangements" to train the judicial officers with the particular focus on sensitising them on how to conduct judicial proceedings, particularly in matters involving decisions of superior courts and the level of "weightage" that is entailed.

The verdict also directed that the judge chairing the Judicial Education & Training Programme Committee, Delhi High Court, should also be apprised of it.

The apex court was critical of the role played by the investigating officer (IO) in the case for his submission that the custodial interrogation of the accused was not needed and, moreover, the chargesheet was already filed.

“We would not shut our eyes to the role(s) played by the IOs either. The stand(s) taken by them before the court(s) below speak volumes. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, is directed to personally conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the IOs and take appropriate action, as deemed necessary. Needful be done on a priority basis,” it ordered.

The ACMM, as a result, was directed to expedite the trial and bring it to conclusion.

“(Apex court) Registry is directed to communicate this Judgment to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, for being placed before the learned Chief Justice and the learned Chairperson, Judicial Education & Training Programme Committee, forthwith,” it said.

The matter traces back to a complaint filed in 2017 alleging that the couple took Rs 1.9 crore from Netsity Systems Pvt Ltd on the promise of transferring land.

Investigation revealed that the land was already mortgaged and subsequently sold to a third party.

Following an order of the ACMM, an FIR was registered at Preet Vihar Police Station in 2018.

During subsequent proceedings, the accused couple sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by a Sessions Court in December 2018.

However, they managed to secure interim protection from the Delhi High Court later that month, which continued for nearly four years.

A mediation also took place between the parties and the accused undertook to repay Rs 6.25 crore to the complainant but failed to honour the commitment.

Their anticipatory bail pleas were ultimately rejected by the high court on February 1, 2023.

Despite this, the ACMM granted them bail in November 2023, observing that custodial interrogation was not required since the chargesheet had already been filed.

The sessions judge subsequently upheld the order in August 2024, and later, a single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the company’s challenge in November 2024.

The apex court came down heavily on the trial court and sessions court for “oversimplifying” the issue and ignoring crucial facts, including the accused’s conduct during earlier proceedings.

“The ACMM, despite being aware of the High Court’s order dated February 01, 2023, proceeded on the simplistic premise that since the chargesheet had been submitted, no useful purpose would be served by taking the accused into custody,” it said, terming the reasoning “untenable” and "bordering on perversity".

The top court also underlined procedural irregularities, including how the accused, after appearing before the court, were allowed to walk free without any formal interim release order until bail was granted a month later.

On the high court’s role, the bench said it erred in treating the matter as a routine bail cancellation plea, overlooking the exceptional circumstances of repeated fraud allegations against the couple.