Supreme Court Orders Training for Two Delhi Judicial Officers Over ‘Perverse’ Bail Order
The Supreme Court has ordered two Delhi judicial officers to undergo at least seven days of special judicial training after finding their orders granting bail to be “illegal, erroneous and bordering on perversity.”
The matter relates to a multi-crore scam where a couple, Dharam Pal Singh Rathore and his wife, were accused of cheating M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. of over ₹6 crore. The Court said the officers — the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) who granted bail and the Karkardooma Sessions Judge who upheld it — had ignored binding precedents and failed to apply judicial principles properly.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti said the bail orders were based on a “simplistic and untenable” approach that merely noted the filing of the chargesheet and overlooked the accused’s long history of misleading the courts. The couple had enjoyed nearly four years of interim protection from arrest, repeatedly violated undertakings to repay the cheated money, and even concealed the rejection of their anticipatory bail pleas.
The Court also highlighted serious procedural lapses, including allowing the accused to walk out without proper custody or release orders. Calling the ACMM’s order “perverse,” the Court said turning a blind eye to such conduct would be a failure of judicial duty.
The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been asked to arrange the training, focusing on sensitising judicial officers about respecting superior court rulings and handling bail applications with due care.
The Court also directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to conduct a personal enquiry into the investigating officers who failed to press for custodial interrogation, noting that their casual stance “spoke volumes.”
While stressing that bail jurisprudence must respect liberty, the bench clarified that such principles cannot be applied mechanically in cases involving serious financial frauds, repeated misuse of the judicial process, and violations of court undertakings.
The case stemmed from Netsity’s 2018 FIR alleging that the accused induced it to part with ₹1.9 crore on the promise of transferring land, which was later found already mortgaged and sold. Despite repeated defaults, the accused managed to secure regular bail in 2023, which was upheld by the lower courts and even the Delhi High Court in 2024. Netsity then moved the Supreme Court, which set aside the bail orders.
The Court also pulled up the Delhi High Court for overlooking key facts and refusing to interfere.
Case Title: M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
