'Essentially A Conviction Order' : Supreme Court Judge Raises Concerns About Delhi HC's Long Orders In Anticipatory Bail Applications

While dealing with a bail matter, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court today expressed strong disapproval of Delhi High Court orders disposing of anticipatory bail pleas running into 30-40 pages. The same are practically "conviction orders" giving the Trial Court reasons to convict, the judge said.

"What's happening in Delhi HC is something disgusting. High Court writing 30-40 pages while disposing of anticipatory bail is hinting the trial court that here is reason for you to convict. Essentially, it's a conviction order."

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with the bail plea of a practicing surgeon in a case registered under Sections 408/420/467/468/471/120B IPC. Vide the impugned 34-page order of the Delhi High Court, he and his mother were denied anticipatory bail, with the observation,

"The allegations as presented by the prosecution against the applicants...are grave in nature and involve a well-orchestrated financial fraud resulting in the misappropriation of substantial sums of money."

"The facts in the present case are alarming in nature...The allegations are that the accused persons who are members of one family i.e. the father, mother and sons and daughter-in-law, entered into a well-planned conspiracy to siphon off and divert the funds of the complainant company. They, in fact, purported alter ego of the complainant company and robbed into the business of the complainant company. Such kind of offences are very serious to the commercial and economic world and are required to be seen with the utmost seriousness. The accused persons are in such close relations that the possibility of them not giving correct information, to save each other cannot be brushed aside", the High Court added.

Against the High Court order, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court. Today, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for him, submitted that it was the petitioner's father who was running the firm in question through the petitioner and his mother (as proxy) and he has been granted bail after 7 months of custody. Yet, the petitioner was equated by the High Court with his father and denied anticipatory bail, even though he joined investigation on as many as 5 occasions.

On a specific court query, Luthra further informed that the chargesheet has been filed in the case. Hearing him, the bench issued notice to respondent-authorities and granted the petitioner interim protection from arrest.

Case Title: AADHAR KHERA Versus THE STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 2591/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order