Supreme Court Revokes Satinder Singh Bhasin’s Bail in Grand Venice Scam Case

Supreme Court: In a significant development, the Supreme Court has revoked the bail granted to Satinder Singh Bhasin, the Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (BIIPL), in the Grand Venice scam case. The decision comes in response to multiple applications filed by allottees, alleging violations of bail conditions and the failure to settle claims with investors.

The detailed trajectory of the case can be traced back to the initial grant of bail on November 6, 2019. The bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including not committing similar offenses, not tampering with evidence, depositing ₹50 crores as a precondition, and making every possible attempt to settle the claims of the concerned complainants within 6 to 8 months. The condition relating to settlement was a core basis for the grant of bail, as evident from the contemporaneous order of the Patiala House Court, which recorded Bhasin's undertaking to either hand over possession with a clear title or refund the money within a stipulated period.

Subsequent applications seeking modifications to the bail conditions were largely rejected. The Court declined to waive the requirement of depositing ₹50 crores and only modified the surety condition. The deposited amount was directed to be invested in an interest-bearing scheme. The Court also facilitated mediation by directing the parties to approach the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. Bhasin gave assurances that the mediation process would be taken to its earliest logical conclusion. The Court noted that homebuyers were free to accept offers of possession or execution of agreements.

In 2022, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 and consolidated all FIRs into a principal FIR (No. 353/2015), observing that multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest. When the writ petition was finally disposed of on August 8, 2023, the Court refused to permit the withdrawal of the ₹50 crores, holding that Bhasin 'cannot have it both ways.' The Court left open the question of breach of bail conditions and granted liberty to the allottees to seek cancellation of bail.

The Court noted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Bhasin's companies under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. The IRP submitted that despite the statutory mandate, Bhasin had not handed over control of the company and continued to manage its affairs. It was further alleged that after the imposition of a moratorium, funds to the tune of ₹74 crores were siphoned off to related entities. Bhasin attempted to justify these transactions as routine business dealings, but no material was placed to substantiate such a claim.

The Court rejected Bhasin's objection that the IRP should not be heard, observing that the IRP is the statute-mandated in-charge and custodian of Bhasin's company's affairs, and its submissions are directly relevant to the allegations of mismanagement and siphoning, which form part of the FIRs. The Court noted that the land had been allotted to Bhasin for a composite project with specific lease conditions, including the execution of tripartite sub-lease deeds and completion of construction within a stipulated time.

The Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) asserted that Bhasin had failed to complete the project, had not submitted a final list of allottees, and had defaulted in payment of substantial dues, including additional FAR charges. It was further submitted that despite repeated opportunities, Bhasin never called upon UPSIDA to execute tripartite deeds, and the delay was entirely attributable to him. Bhasin, on the other hand, contended that the property was complete and that UPSIDA had created impediments. However, the Court noted that Bhasin had neither obtained a final completion certificate nor cleared dues, and therefore his stand lacked credibility.

The Court referred to the case of Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690, and reiterated that while the grant of bail and cancellation operate on different considerations, post-bail conduct is a valid ground for cancellation. The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the deposit condition and found that the ₹50 crores deposited as a pre-condition for bail did not come from Bhasin's personal funds but from BIIPL and related entities. No board resolution was passed authorizing such transactions, nor was any special resolution obtained as required under Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court observed that not a single rupee had been contributed from Bhasin's personal funds and that the arrangement lacked any bona fide commercial structure, including the absence of security or safeguards.

The Court held that the condition requiring the deposit was imposed on Bhasin in his individual capacity and therefore required bona fide compliance. The use of company funds, without statutory compliance, constituted a clear violation. The Court further held that provisions relating to fraudulent transactions under insolvency law would apply, and the objection of limitation raised by Bhasin was untenable. The Court rejected the argument that no objection had been raised earlier and accepted the IRP's contention that such transactions could be examined as fraudulent under the IBC. The Court decided the issue against Bhasin.

The Court relied on the UPSIDA inspection report, which revealed that the project was far from complete. Basic amenities such as drinking water were absent, only one lift was functional, fire safety systems were non-operational, and the units were not in a habitable condition. The Court noted that these findings, coupled with the Observer Report and the Committee Report, demonstrated that Bhasin's claim of readiness to hand over possession was not genuine. The Court held that incomplete construction directly undermined Bhasin's obligation to settle claims and reflected a lack of bona fide intention.

The Court then addressed the core condition of bail, i.e., settlement of claims, and noted that despite the lapse of more than 6 years, Bhasin failed to settle claims of all investors. Even in cases where settlement was claimed, compliance was incomplete or disputed. The Court noted that repeated opportunities had been granted 'only by way of indulgence,' yet Bhasin failed to demonstrate genuine effort. It found the shifting of blame onto allottees and UPSIDA to be unacceptable. The Court held that there was no genuine or bona fide effort to settle claims, and Bhasin's conduct indicated the absence of intent to do so.

Upon examining affidavits of individual allottees, the Court found that many investors who were shown as 'settled' had not received possession, refund, or execution of documents. Several agreements remained unimplemented for years. It was asserted that this revealed a pattern where settlements were either illusory or incomplete. It was held that such conduct amounted to misrepresentation and further established a breach of bail conditions.

The Court also took note of the large number of FIRs pending against Bhasin, approximately 190, relating to similar allegations. The Court concluded that Bhasin's conduct, including the siphoning of funds, incomplete construction, and lack of genuine effort to settle claims, amounted to a clear violation of bail conditions. Consequently, the Supreme Court canceled Bhasin's bail and instructed him to surrender within one week from the date of the judgment.