Evading arrest, defying Supreme Court: NBWs, contempt action sought against Bhasin

New Delhi [India], April 21 : In a significant escalation before the Supreme Court, a fresh application has accused real estate promoter Satinder Singh Bhasin of wilfully evading arrest and defying binding judicial directions, notwithstanding explicit orders cancelling his bail and mandating his surrender.

The application, filed by the Grand Venezia Buyers' Association, seeks immediate coercive measures to enforce the Court's April 2, 2026, judgment, which revoked Bhasin's bail and directed him to surrender within seven days.

At the heart of the plea lies a categorical allegation of "deliberate defiance." The applicants point out that the surrender deadline of April 9 has long elapsed, yet Bhasin has neither appeared before the authorities nor demonstrated any bona fide intent to comply, thereby undermining the authority of the Supreme Court.

In strongly worded submissions, the buyers' association contends that the continued failure to surrenderdespite the expiry of the stipulated period and the Court's rejection of his plea for extensionconstitutes wilful disobedience in its most brazen form. The plea warns that such conduct sends a deeply troubling signal that orders of the highest court can be circumvented through calculated procedural manoeuvres. It further alleges that Bhasin may have already left the country through unlawful means, while also raising concerns over the apparent inaction of the Uttar Pradesh Police in ensuring compliance with the Court's orders dated April 2 and April 8, 2026. The applicants caution that any leniency in addressing such conduct risks eroding public confidence in the administration of justice and diminishing the authority of the Supreme Court.

The application portrays a pattern of calculated delay. Following the cancellation of his bail, Bhasin sought an extension of timewhich was rejected by the Court on April 8but is alleged to have continued filing successive applications, including a recall plea, in an apparent attempt to stall compliance.

Further, the plea accuses Bhasin of suppressing material facts. It asserts that parallel proceedings relating to multiple FIRs pending before courts in Delhi and Gautam Budh Nagar were not disclosed, reflecting what the applicants describe as a lack of candour and bona fides.

The dispute originates from complaints by homebuyers of the 'Grand Venezia' project in Greater Noida, who have alleged cheating, diversion of funds, and irregularities in allotment. Although Bhasin was granted bail in 2019 subject to stringent conditions, including the deposit of substantial amounts, the Supreme Court recently found non-compliance with those conditions sufficient to revoke the relief and direct his surrender.

Highlighting the gravity of the situation, the applicants submit that continued non-compliance heightens the risk of Bhasin evading the legal process altogether, including the possibility of fleeing the country. Such conduct, they argue, not only frustrates judicial orders but strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law.

Accordingly, the plea seeks issuance of non-bailable warrants, a lookout circular to prevent any attempt to leave India, and initiation of contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience. It urges the Court to secure Bhasin's custody without further delay and to send a clear and unequivocal message against attempts to undermine judicial authority.

Notably, while cancelling Bhasin's bail earlier this month, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh had underscored his failure to comply with conditions imposed at the time of grant of bail in November 2019, and consequently directed him to surrender within one week, a mandate that now forms the basis of the present enforcement plea.

An additional application has also been filed by investor Ms Louleen Kaur Bhalla in the matter, seeking urgent enforcement of the Supreme Court's judgment dated April 2, 2026. The plea prays for directions to compel the petitioner to immediately surrender in strict compliance with the said judgment, and further calls for initiation of appropriate proceedings, including contempt, for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Court's order.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor