The Supreme Court, while setting aside bail in a cheating case, has laid down significant principles governing the grant of bail, emphasizing that decisions must be rooted in the specific facts of a case rather than the mechanical application of legal precedents. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti clarified that the grounds for considering regular and anticipatory bail are not rigidly distinct and reminded courts that an accused is in “deemed custody” upon appearing for a bail hearing.
Factual Context of the Ruling
The observations came in the case of M/S Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., where the Court cancelled the bail granted to a couple accused of cheating. The lower courts had granted them bail primarily on the ground that a chargesheet had been filed. The Supreme Court found this approach flawed, holding that it ignored the “glaring factual matrix” of the accused’s adverse conduct, which included resiling from a settlement undertaking given to the High Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Bail Law
The Supreme Court used the case to elaborate on foundational principles of bail jurisprudence.
Facts are Paramount: The Court stressed that facts must precede the application of law. It observed, “Bail matters are primarily to be adjudicated on the facts and circumstances, before applying any principle of law.” Reinforcing this, the judgment stated that “no precedent operates in a vacuum and must be co-related to the extant facts.” The bench found that the lower courts had erred by glossing over the accused’s conduct and instead focusing on the abstract principle that custody is not needed after a chargesheet is filed.
Anticipatory vs. Regular Bail: The Court addressed the distinction between anticipatory bail (Section 438 CrPC) and regular bail (Section 437 CrPC). The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) had proceeded on the premise that the grounds for considering the two are different. The Supreme Court termed this observation “ex-facie not totally correct.” Referring to its three-judge bench decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court clarified, “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.”
Principle of Deemed Custody: The judgment also highlighted a crucial procedural aspect. The accused had appeared before the ACMM on October 18, 2023, with their bail pleas, but the final order granting bail was passed only on November 10, 2023. During the interim period, they were not taken into custody despite no formal order of interim release being passed. The Supreme Court found this improper, ruling:
“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.”
Based on these principles, the Court concluded that the grant of bail was untenable, quashed the orders of the lower courts, and directed the accused to surrender.
