Erroneous bail orders: SC orders two Delhi judicial officers to undergo special judicial training

Taking exception to their erroneous bail orders “bordering on perversity” in a cheating case, the Supreme Court has ordered two Delhi judicial officers to undergo seven-day special training at the Delhi Judicial Academy.

“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,” a Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti said in its September 25 order.

The Bench held that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and the Sessions Judge of Karkardooma Courts in the National Capital failed to apply settled principles while granting and upholding bail to the accused.

Quashing the ACMM’s order dated November 10, 2023, the Sessions Judge’s order dated August 16, 2024, as well as the Delhi High Court’s impugned order dated November 18, 2024, the top court directed the accused to surrender before the ACMM in two weeks.

Taking note of serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer, the top court also ordered the Delhi Police chief to conduct a departmental enquiry into his conduct.

“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.

It sought to emphasise that liberty principles cannot be applied mechanically in cases involving serious economic offences and that they must be applied to specific facts of a case.

The dispute related to a 2018 FIR based on allegations levelled by a company that the accused-couple took Rs 1.9 crore with the promise of transferring land but refused to return the money after it was discovered that the land had already been sold and mortgaged. Along with interest, the company sought to recover Rs 6 crore.