The Supreme Court on April 2, 2026, cancelled the bail granted to Satinder Singh Bhasin (Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited) in 2019 in connection with multiple FIRs alleging misappropriation of funds and non-delivery of units in the ‘Grand Venice’ project. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh allowed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by allottees and directed forfeiture of the Rs. 50 crore deposited by Bhasin pursuant to one of the bail conditions.

The Court held that Bhasin had violated the core condition requiring him to deposit Rs. 50 crores in his individual capacity. Instead, he siphoned off funds from BIIPL and related entities without passing the mandatory special resolution under Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court observed that this was not a legitimate loan but an interest-free commercial benefit obtained by misappropriating company funds. It further noted the complete absence of safeguards such as pledging of shares or security, rendering the transaction unlawful.

The judgment emphasised that bail was granted with strict conditions to facilitate settlement with allottees and to ensure no further offences. Despite multiple opportunities, mediation attempts, and directions issued over six years, Bhasin failed to complete construction, hand over possession, or settle claims with a large number of allottees. The Court recorded that even after the imposition of moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Bhasin continued to exercise control over the company and diverted funds.

Key observations of the Court:

• “Upon a consideration of the above submissions and the breakup as filed by the petitioner himself, it cannot be disputed that the amount of Rs. 50 crores has originated from the funds of BIIPL and other related entities… The condition requiring deposit as a prerequisite for grant of bail, was imposed upon the petitioner in his individual capacity. This condition required bonafide, if not strict, compliance.”
• “On a plain reading of Section 185 of the Companies Act, it is evident that a company cannot directly or indirectly give a loan to its director without passing a special resolution… In the present case, it cannot be said that the loan to secure bail for the petitioner was connected to the company’s principal business activities by any stretch of imagination.”
• The absence of even basic safeguards “is representative of how these transactions lack any bonafide/lawful financial structure.”

The Court ordered:

• Immediate cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 06.11.2019.
• Forfeiture of the Rs. 50 crore deposit: Rs. 5 crores to be transferred to NALSA; the remaining amount to be utilised in the ongoing insolvency proceedings against BIIPL.
• The criminal trials in the consolidated FIRs to proceed expeditiously.
• Liberty to the allottees and the Interim Resolution Professional to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that while the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code proceedings would continue independently, the egregious violations of bail conditions warranted cancellation of liberty granted under Article 32.

Case Title: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Nos.: Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2024 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019 (with connected matters)
Date of Judgment: 02 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Singh

Click HERE for full Judgment