SATINDER SINGH BHASIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Cancellation of Bail and Forfeiture of Deposit due to Violation of Settlement Conditions, Unauthorized Use of Corporate Funds for Bail, and Prima Facie Evidence of Siphoning and Document Fabrication.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 310
Decision Date: 02-04-2026
List of Laws
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cancellation of Bail); Constitution of India (Article 32 and Article 142); Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Section 14 Moratorium); Companies Act, 2013 (Section 185 and Section 186); Real Estate Regulation and Development Law (Allottee Rights)
- Facts: The petitioner, Satinder Singh Bhasin, Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL), was involved in the 'Grand Venice' real estate project. Numerous FIRs were filed against him by allottees alleging non-delivery of units, siphoning of funds, and fraudulent allotments. In 2019, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail subject to several conditions, including the deposit of Rs. 50 crores and a mandate to make every possible attempt to settle the claims of all aggrieved investors/allottees within a stipulated timeframe. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings were initiated against BIIPL and its group companies. The allottees and the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) moved applications for the cancellation of bail, alleging that the petitioner had violated bail conditions by siphoning funds during the moratorium, failing to genuinely settle claims, and using company funds (instead of personal funds) to satisfy the bail deposit condition.
- Procedural Posture: The matter reached the Supreme Court through a batch of Miscellaneous Applications filed by allottees and the IRP in a disposed of Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner on 06.11.2019.
- Issue: Whether the petitioner violated the conditions of bail imposed by the Court, particularly regarding the settlement of allottee claims and the bona fide nature of his conduct, thereby warranting the cancellation of his bail.
- Holding: Yes, the Court held that the petitioner systematically violated the bail conditions. Consequently, the bail was cancelled, and the petitioner was directed to surrender. The deposit of Rs. 50 crores along with accrued interest was ordered to be forfeited.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the grant of bail was conditional upon "genuine efforts" to resolve allottee disputes, which the petitioner failed to achieve despite years of indulgence. Evidence from various committee reports (UPSIDA, IRP, and a Court-appointed independent committee) confirmed that the project was incomplete, lacked essential services like water and functional lifts, and was unfit for possession, making the petitioner's claims of settlement "notional" and "on paper" only. Furthermore, the petitioner violated Section 185 of the Companies Act by "borrowing" the bail deposit amount from BIIPL without a special resolution. The Court also noted prima facie evidence of siphoning Rs. 74 crores during the IBC moratorium to related entities and the fabrication of allotment documents containing GST clauses predating the tax's enactment. Such conduct demonstrated a total lack of bona fides and a direct breach of the trust reposed by the Court.
🔒 For Members Only