In CRL.M.C. 2749/2023 and 2751/2023, decided on 23 September 2026, Justice Madhu Jain of the Delhi High Court dismissed the Central Bureau of Investigation’s petitions against the regular bail granted in December 2022 to Sanjay Pandey, a retired IPS officer and founder of iSEC Services, and Chitra Ramkrishna, formerly Managing Director of the National Stock Exchange, in the case concerning alleged unauthorised interception of NSE employees’ telephone calls between 2009 and 2017. The judgment is a useful restatement of when a superior court will disturb a bail order — and when it will not.
Background: the NSE interception case
The CBI’s case is that iSEC Services Pvt. Ltd. was engaged by the National Stock Exchange for what was described as security-related work, and that under cover of that engagement the telephone calls of NSE employees were intercepted without lawful authority between 2009 and 2017. Sanjay Pandey, who founded iSEC and later rose to be Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and Chitra Ramkrishna, who held senior positions at NSE from Deputy Managing Director to Managing Director in the relevant period, were arrested and later admitted to regular bail by the Special Judge on 21 December 2022. The CBI moved the High Court to have those bail orders set aside.
The doctrinal divide the judgment applies
Setting aside a bail order
Directed at the order’s birth. Grounds: perversity, ignoring the gravity of material on record, misapplication of settled principles, or orders passed without jurisdiction. The superior court examines the granting court’s reasoning, not the accused’s later behaviour.
Cancellation of bail
Directed at events after release. Grounds: tampering with evidence, influencing or threatening witnesses, flight, breach of conditions, or fresh offences. Liberty once granted is not withdrawn lightly; supervening misconduct must be shown.
The CBI’s petitions belonged to the first category — it alleged the Special Judge’s orders were legally unsustainable. Justice Madhu Jain examined the orders and found the Special Judge had (i) appropriately considered a related judgment in the parallel money-laundering proceedings without abdicating his own jurisdiction, (ii) dealt with the CBI’s specific objections, (iii) correctly identified the common legal foundation of the connected proceedings, and (iv) applied an independent judicial mind. That being so, no case of perversity or illegality was made out, and the petitions were dismissed.
Why the distinction matters in everyday bail practice
For the prosecution
Choosing the wrong track is fatal. Allegations about post-release conduct cannot prop up a setting-aside plea, and complaints about the order’s reasoning cannot be smuggled into a cancellation application.
For the accused
A well-reasoned bail order is a shield. Where the granting court has engaged with the prosecution’s objections on the record, a superior court will rarely re-weigh the same material.
For complainants
A victim aggrieved by a bail order must likewise identify which attack is available: demonstrable legal error in the order, or concrete supervening misconduct — supported by material, not apprehension.
The framework in the BNSS era
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the High Court’s power to entertain such challenges flows from Section 483 (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC), which includes the power to direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody, read with the inherent power preserved by Section 528 (Section 482 CrPC). The standards, however, remain those developed by the Supreme Court: interference with a considered bail order requires perversity or ignoring of material; cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances arising after release.
The judgment does not comment on the merits of the pending trial. The observations are confined to the legality of the bail orders, and the prosecution’s case remains to be established at trial.
Takeaway
Before challenging or defending a bail order in the Delhi High Court, classify the attack: order-focused (setting aside) or conduct-focused (cancellation). Assemble the material that the chosen track demands — the granting court’s reasoning and record for the first, verifiable post-release conduct for the second — and expect the court to hold the line between the two.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Bail litigation is intensely fact-specific and requires advice on the record of the particular case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between setting aside bail and cancelling bail?
Setting aside attacks the bail order itself: the challenger must show the order was perverse, ignored relevant material, or applied wrong principles. Cancellation attacks the accused’s conduct after release — tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, absconding or committing fresh offences. The tests are distinct and the second is not a substitute for failing the first.
Why did the CBI’s challenge fail?
The Court found the Special Judge had considered the CBI’s specific objections, taken note of a related PMLA ruling without surrendering independent judgment, and applied his own mind to the bail question. Since the challenge was to the order’s legality and no perversity was shown, there was no ground to interfere.
What was the underlying allegation?
That iSEC Services, engaged by NSE for security work for which it was paid about ₹4.54 crore, illegally intercepted telephone calls of NSE employees between 2009 and 2017 — giving rise to prosecutions by both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate.
Does a bail order granted by a trial court bind the High Court?
No, but the High Court exercises a supervisory discipline: it does not re-hear the bail plea as though sitting in appeal. Unless the order is shown to be perverse or contrary to settled principles, the discretion exercised by the first court stands.