Bhasin Bail Cancelled Over Grand Venice Violations
The Supreme Court on April 2 cancelled businessman Satinder Singh Bhasin’s bail after finding that he violated bail conditions. The Court directed him to surrender within one week.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh passed the order in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi [MA 239/2024 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 242/2019; 2026 INSC 316]. The matter arises from allegations linked to the ‘Grand Venice’ project in the National Capital Region.
Bhasin, a Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (BIIPL), faces allegations of non-delivery of residential units, misappropriation of allottees’ funds, and irregularities in land allotment in alleged collusion with State officials. The project included a mall and a commercial tower. Police registered about 63 FIRs in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh in connection with the project.
The Court cancelled his bail for two main reasons. First, Bhasin did not make genuine efforts to settle the claims of flat allottees. Second, he used ₹50 lakhs from company funds, not his personal account, to satisfy a bail condition.
The Court also forfeited the entire ₹50 crore deposit along with accrued interest. It directed the authorities to transfer ₹5 crore with proportionate interest to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). It further directed them to transfer the balance amount, along with interest, to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for the insolvency proceedings.
The Bench imposed further restrictions on Bhasin. It barred him from seeking regular fresh bail for 12 months, subject to compliance with orders passed in the insolvency proceedings. It also directed the Trial Court not to release his passport without permission.
The case began with a writ petition filed by Bhasin seeking clubbing of multiple FIRs and grant of bail. On November 6, 2019, the Supreme Court granted him bail on conditions. Those conditions required him to make every possible attempt to settle allottees’ claims and deposit ₹50 crore before the Supreme Court Registry. The Court also made it clear that if he breached any bail condition, it would forfeit no less than 50% of the deposited amount.
On October 20, 2023, the allottees filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking cancellation of bail. They alleged that Bhasin did not take concrete steps to settle their grievances. Although he entered into settlement agreements with some allottees, he did not hand over possession of the units. They also alleged that he siphoned company funds to comply with the Court’s bail condition.
During the hearings, the issue of double allotment also surfaced. The Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority is a party to the matter. It was claimed that the authorities had allotted the subject land for one project comprising a mall, commercial spaces, and a hotel. Some allottees then initiated insolvency proceedings against BIIPL. A coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to those proceedings. The Court also noted that Bhasin did not hand over the affairs of his company to the resolution professional.
On August 25, 2025, the Court sought detailed information from Bhasin on the number of constructed units, the prices at which allotments were made, and the status of completion. Although he filed information, the Court found that material unconvincing. After giving him several opportunities, the Court issued a show-cause notice on November 20, 2025, asking why it should not cancel his bail.
To protect the interests of the allottees, the Court appointed Justice Deepak Gupta, retired Judge of the Supreme Court, as Chairperson, along with Senior Advocate Rekha Palli. They were to verify the final list of allottees, examine the status of construction, and assess whether Bhasin had cooperated with the IRP authorities.
In its findings, the Court held that the ₹50 crore deposit came from company funds. It observed that Bhasin could not have used those funds without prior approval through a special resolution. The Court stressed that it had imposed the deposit condition on Bhasin in his individual capacity and expected bona fide, if not strict, compliance.
Relying on Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013, which deals with loans to directors, the Court held that a company cannot directly or indirectly give a loan to its director without a special resolution in a general meeting, unless the funds relate to the company’s principal business activities. The Court found no connection between securing bail for Bhasin and the company’s principal business activities. It therefore held that the deposit made through the purported loan from BIIPL, without documentary approval or statutory compliance, could not stand.
The Court also found that Bhasin did not complete construction of the units. It observed that the project had not reached a stage where possession could be handed over to the allottees. For that reason, the Court held that settlement with those seeking possession was not possible at that stage.
The Bench further held that Bhasin violated the bail condition that required him to make efforts to settle the claims. It said that condition was not a mere formality. Rather, the Court had intended it to secure actual resolution of the allottees’ claims. The Bench found that Bhasin did not make genuine or meaningful efforts. Many allottees received neither possession nor refund. Even executed settlement agreements largely remained on paper and did not yield actual relief.
In light of these findings, the Court cancelled Bhasin’s bail and issued consequential directions.
Case Details: Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of NCT of Delhi
Case No.: MA 239/2024 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 242/2019
Citation: 2026 INSC 316
