The Supreme Court of India has ordered special judicial training for two Delhi judges after identifying faults in their bail orders. The ruling emphasizes the necessity for rigorous appraisal and adherence to precedents when granting bail, particularly in cases involving economic offenses.
The case in question involves a couple accused of defrauding a private company of over ₹6 crore in a fraudulent land deal. The couple, Dharam Pal Singh Rathore and Shiksha Rathore, allegedly took ₹1.9 crore under the pretense of transferring land, but failed to return the money when it was discovered that the land had already been sold and mortgaged. The company filed a complaint in 2017, leading to an FIR in 2018. The Delhi High Court had previously denied the couple anticipatory bail in 2023, criticizing them for misleading the court with false promises while enjoying interim protection from arrest.
Despite the High Court's stance, an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) granted the couple regular bail in November 2023, arguing that the filing of the chargesheet eliminated the need for custody. A Sessions Judge upheld this decision in August 2024, and the Delhi High Court declined to intervene.
The Supreme Court disapproved of this reasoning, observing that the lower courts overlooked the accused's previous misconduct and failed to consider the High Court's earlier comments. The Court emphasized that bail decisions should be based on facts and conduct rather than mechanical reasoning. Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti found that the judges disregarded binding precedents and "glossed over" material facts while releasing the accused. The Supreme Court was critical of the ACMM for granting bail on a "simplistic approach" that, since a charge sheet has been filed, no purpose would be served by taking the accused into custody.
In light of these lapses, the Supreme Court annulled the bail orders from the ACMM, the Sessions Judge, and the High Court, directing the accused to surrender within two weeks. The Court mandated that both judicial officers undergo a minimum of seven days of special judicial training at the Delhi Judicial Academy. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been requested to make arrangements for the training, with a focus on sensitizing judicial officers on how to conduct proceedings and the deference to be accorded to superior court rulings.
The Supreme Court also took note of serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer and ordered the Delhi Police chief to conduct a departmental enquiry into his conduct. The Court observed that the investigating officer's stance during the bail proceedings "spoke volumes".
The Supreme Court clarified that its directives were intended to uphold accountability and judicial discipline, not to undermine principles of liberty. The Bench emphasized that bail decisions should be based on the facts of each case, as "no precedent operates in a vacuum". The Supreme Court sought to emphasize that liberty principles cannot be applied mechanically in cases involving serious economic offenses and that they must be applied to specific facts of a case.
