Accused were permitted to leave the court without any formal order of release or even without taking a bond under section 88 of the Code

Appeal against the Hon’ble High court’s order dismissing appellant/complainant’s petition against the order granting bail

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.

Analysis, Reasoning and Conclusion

Lower courts orders cannot be sustained: 16. Having examined the matter in extenso and taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the present cases, we are of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order, the Sessions Judge’s Order dated 16.08.2024 as also the ACMM’s Order dated 10.11.2023 cannot be sustained.

Dismissal of A.Bs: 18. It cannot be lost sight of that the Order dated 09.04.2019 supra was based on the submission by the accused that they were willing to settle and/or compromise the matter and would pay an amount, as might be determined in mediation. However, despite the lapse of close to four years, no fruitful result emerged from the mediation process, and in the end, after the Chargesheet was submitted, the anticipatory bail applications were dismissed. After 09.04.2019, the interim orders were specifically continued, by Orders dated 31.07.2019, 31.01.2020 and 11.10.2022.

Despite the dismissal of A.Bs ACMM allowed interim bail order: 19. We note that the Order dated 01.02.2023 dismissing the anticipatory bail applications detailed the conduct of the accused and thereafter, considered and dismissed the said petitions on merits. We find the reasoning employed in Order dated 01.02.2023, as recorded by us above, is fully justified in the facts and circumstances. In this backdrop, the ACMM, despite being made aware of the High Court’s Order dated 01.02.2023 and even noting the same, proceeded on the simplistic premise that since the Chargesheet had been submitted, no useful purpose would be served by taking the accused into custody, particularly as the stand taken by the IO was that custodial interrogation was not required. Such reasoning, in our view, is untenable, inasmuch as the same glossed over the private respondents’ conduct, including undertakings made before a higher Court viz. the High Court.

20. We have deliberately adopted a mild mannerism in describing the ACMM’s Order dated 10.11.2023, even as the consideration adopted therein borders on the perversity. 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. Sanjay Chandra (supra) itself says, and rightly so, that grant or denial of bail is regulated by the accompanying facts and circumstances.

Sanjay Chandra v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 case observation:

“40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.’ (emphasis supplied)”

22. Without becoming verbose, we would like to refer to two recent pronouncements of this Court i.e., Ashok Dhankad v State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690 (delivered on 13.08.2025) and State of Karnataka v Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 (delivered on 14.08.2025). In Ashok Dhankad (supra), it was stated thus:

‘19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:

(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;

(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;

(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court. [See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu]

(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;

(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and

(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.’ (emphasis supplied)

23. In Sri Darshan (supra), the Court, upon examining the law, observed:

‘20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.

xxx

20.2. Courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage.

xxx

20.3. Appreciation of evidence at the bail stage is impermissible.

xxx

20.4. Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail.

xxx

20.5. Post-bail good conduct of the accused, while relevant to the question of continuation of bail, cannot retrospectively validate an otherwise unsustainable order.’ (emphasis supplied)

25. When the ACMM had noted ‘peculiarity’ in the case, and that the bail applications ‘are not to be allowed mechanically’ as also that the material collected by the IO had during investigation had to be weighed, it is surprising how the Order dated 10.11.2023 is completely bereft of any examination of the material available in the Chargesheet against the accused, despite itself noting that the ‘role of both the accused persons in the alleged incident of cheating has been clearly delineated in the chargesheet.’ Further, the observation to the effect that ‘The grounds for considering an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of CrPC and a bail application under Section 437 of CrPC are different.’ is ex-facie not totally correct in light of what a 3-Judge Bench has observed in Satender Kumar Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452:

‘11. Learned counsel submits that though there is observation qua the correctness of the practice to be tested in an appropriate case, this case itself is the appropriate case as directions have already been passed and somehow they have been understood as if they will apply to cases for regular bail and not to anticipatory bail. We would like to clarify that what we have enunciated qua bail would equally apply to anticipatory bail cases. Anticipatory bail after all is one of the species of a bail.’ (emphasis supplied)

26. We have held in State of Haryana v Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510:

‘11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by this Court through its pronouncements are illustrative, and not exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on its own facts and merits. In Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab [Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518] , taking note of Dolat Ram [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] and X v. State of Telangana [X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902], the Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused therein. Keeping all the aforesaid in mind, we turn our attention to the facts in praesenti.’ (emphasis supplied)

The manner in which bail was granted reveals procedural irregularities at the grassroots level of the judiciary

30. The manner in which bail was granted also reveals certain procedural irregularities at the grassroots level of the judiciary, which we should not ignore. Cognizance was taken by the ACMM vide Order dated 28.03.2023 (12.20 pm) and summons were issued to the accused. On 09.08.2023, the accused sought, and were granted time to file bail applications. accused duo, it is stated, appeared before the ACMM on 18.10.2023 with pleas for grant of bail. Thus, technically, once the bail applications were taken up for hearing and the accused had appeared before the Court, they were deemed to be in the custody of the Court concerned, unless a specific order was passed directing their release – either on regular basis or in the interim. In the present circumstances, it is not disputed that no such interim release order was passed, yet the private respondents were not taken into custody. Orders were subsequently passed by the ACMM on 18.10.2023, 30.10.2023, 01.11.2023, 04.11.2023, 06.11.2023 and 09.11.2023. Bail was eventually granted only vide the ACMM’s Order dated 10.11.2023.

The accused were permitted to leave the court without any formal order of release even a bond having been taken under section 88 of the Code

31. This fact is evident from the very Order dated 10.11.2023, which itself records that bail was to be granted upon the furnishing of bail bonds for a sum of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions mentioned therein. Clearly, Order dated 10.11.2023 was the first  occasion on which bail was actually granted to the accused. There is no indication forthcoming from the record that, upon their appearance before the Court, the couple were granted liberty till the final Order came to be passed/pronounced. We are unable to comprehend how, having formally surrendered before the Court, the accused were permitted to leave the Court without any formal order of release. On perusal of Orders passed by the ACMM between 18.10.2023 to 10.11.2023 (enumerated supra), we do not see any order of release or of even a bond having been taken under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

33. Under ordinary circumstances, where bail has been granted in the absence of glaring facts such as those recorded above, the matter may not warrant reconsideration in light of judicial precedents. However, as the preceding analysis would demonstrate, 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.

Order granting Sessions’s judge and ACMM’s order are quashed

37. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made hereinabove and on an overall conspectus, the ACMM’s Order dated 10.11.2023, the Sessions Judge’s Order dated 16.08.2024, as well as the Impugned Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the High Court, are hereby quashed and set aside. We are not inclined to go down the route in Rahul Gupta (supra) and do not propose to remit the matters for being decided afresh. As such, the private respondents are directed to surrender before the ACMM within two weeks from today positively.

Judicial officials are directed to go special training in the judicial academy

38. 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. In the facts herein, we deem it appropriate that 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 learned Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, is requested to make appropriate arrangements for such training at the Delhi Judicial Academy, with particular focus on sensitizing 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. The learned Judge chairing the Judicial Education & Training Programme Committee, Delhi High Court be also apprised of this Judgment.

Judgments cited or involved

• Sanjay Chandra v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40
• Ajwar v Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768
• Manik Madhukar Sarve v Vitthal Damuji Meher, (2024) 10 SCC 753
• Shabeen Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 172
• State of Rajasthan v Indraj Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 518
• Victim ‘X’ v State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1490
• Ajwar v Waseem, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1742
• State of Andhra Pradesh v N Sanjay, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1747
• Rahul Gupta v State of Rajasthan, (2023) 7 SCC 781
  • Cited within Rahul Gupta: Sunil Gupta v. State of Rajasthan Crl. Misc Bail Appln. No. 10068 of 2022, order dated 18-7-2022 (Raj)
• Ashok Dhankad v State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690 (delivered on 13.08.2025)
  • Cited within Ashok Dhankad:
    • Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022) 9 SCC 269
    • Jaibunisha v. Meherban (2022) 5 SCC 465
    • Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu (2023) 13 SCC 549
• State of Karnataka v Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 (delivered on 14.08.2025)
• Satender Kumar Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452
• State of Haryana v Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510
  • Cited within State of Haryana v Dharamraj:
    • Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021) 15 SCC 518
    • Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237
    • X v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902
• Court on its Own Motion v State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12306
  • Also noted: Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 1 SCC 676 (Took note of Court on its Own Motion judgment)
• Himanshu Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 INSC 139
• Satender Kumar Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (referred to as ‘Antil-I’)
• Other cases mentioned by the ACMM, but not specifically cited in the judgment’s text: Jainam’s case (supra) and Shiv Lingam’s case (supra)

Note: The High Court Order dated 01.02.2023 rejecting the anticipatory bail applications is also mentioned with a citation: [2023:DHC:747 | 2023 SCC OnLine Del 599].

Acts and Sections involved in the case

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  • Section 438: Concerns the grant of Anticipatory Bail. The accused’s applications for anticipatory bail were rejected by the High Court.
  • Section 437: Concerns the grant of Regular Bail (bail by courts other than the High Court or Court of Session). The ACMM granted bail to the accused under this section.
  • Section 88: Concerns the Power to take bond for appearance. The judgment notes that no bond had been taken under this section, contrary to a potential observation in the Impugned Order.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  • Section 420: Offences of cheating. The accused were charge-sheeted for offences under this section, and another FIR was pending against them for the same offence.
  • Section 34: Offence of Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The accused were charge-sheeted for offences under this section.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  • Section 302: Murder. This is mentioned only in the context of citing the Rahul Gupta v State of Rajasthan judgment.

Party

M/S Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. versus The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr -Criminal Appeal No. 4283 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4971 of 2025) and Criminal Appeal No. 4284 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7587 of 2025) – 2025 INSC 1181 – September 25, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.