The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders, emphasizing that the grant of bail must consider the totality of circumstances, including the accused’s conduct and antecedents. The Court held that lower courts erred by ignoring relevant factors and precedents, and by granting bail mechanically without proper application of mind to the material on record.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a criminal complaint alleging that the accused respondents, a husband and wife, had cheated them of ₹1.9 crores by promising to transfer a piece of land that was already mortgaged and sold to a third party. An FIR was subsequently registered. The accused sought anticipatory bail, and the High Court granted them interim protection for nearly four years, during which mediation was attempted. In the mediation, the accused undertook to repay ₹6.25 crores to the appellant but ultimately failed to do so. Consequently, the High Court dismissed their anticipatory bail applications, strongly condemning their conduct as misleading the court. Despite this rejection and their antecedents involving multiple similar cheating cases, the trial court (ACMM) later granted them regular bail primarily on the grounds that the chargesheet had been filed and custodial interrogation was not needed. The appellant challenged this bail grant, but both the Sessions Court and the High Court upheld it, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the filing of a criminal complaint by the appellant, leading to the registration of an FIR. The accused respondents initially sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. They then approached the Delhi High Court, which granted them interim protection and referred the matter to mediation. After the mediation failed and the chargesheet was filed, the High Court dismissed their anticipatory bail applications, strongly criticizing their conduct. Subsequently, the accused surrendered and applied for regular bail before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), who granted it. The appellant’s challenge to this bail order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant then filed criminal petitions before the Delhi High Court, which were also dismissed, upholding the bail. This series of dismissals led the appellant to file the present appeals before the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions.
READ ALSO:Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made significant observations, holding that the lower courts committed a grave error by granting bail on a simplistic premise that custodial interrogation was unnecessary post-chargesheet, while completely ignoring the accused’s conduct. The Court emphasized that the accused had misled the High Court by obtaining interim protection for years based on an undertaking to repay the cheated amount, which they subsequently resiled from. This conduct, along with their antecedents of involvement in multiple similar economic offences, was a highly relevant factor that rendered them unfit for bail. The Court further observed that the bail orders were passed mechanically without assessing the material in the chargesheet and exhibited procedural irregularities. It reiterated that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised based on the totality of facts and circumstances, and not in a vacuum.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the bail granted to the accused respondents. The orders passed by the ACMM, the Sessions Judge, and the High Court were quashed. The Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. Furthermore, it mandated special judicial training for the judicial officers who passed the impugned bail orders and ordered the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the Investigating Officers. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Case Details:
Case Title: M/S Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1181 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4283 of 2025 Date of Judgement: 25th September, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Download The Judgement Here