In Brief
In this economic offence case involving cheating of ₹1.9 crore, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal against bail granted to two accused. The accused had given undertakings before the Delhi High Court to repay the amount during settlement negotiations, then enjoyed interim protection for nearly four years. After the chargesheet was filed, they sought and obtained regular bail from the ACMM without disclosing the High Court had rejected their anticipatory bail. The Court held that serious prior conduct before courts—including false undertakings and prolonged misuse of interim orders—is relevant when reviewing bail grants, and no precedent can be mechanically applied ignoring specific facts. The Court quashed the bail orders and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.