Delhi High Court: In an application for anticipatory bail, wherein the accused had already filed four anticipatory bail applications as well as two Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) that had been dismissed by the Sessions Court, High Court and Supreme Court, the Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J, opined that the entertainment of another anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Court despite dismissal orders from both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court amounted to judicial indiscipline and impropriety.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application and directed further investigation into the matter.
Background
The complainant purchased property in Prashant Vihar, Delhi from the accused who had bought the same from co-accused, Manjeet Singh. However, when the complainant had tried to sell the property, he came to know that the conveyance deed executed in favour of Manjeet Singh was forged and the property in question was a vacant plot available with the Delhi Development Authority.
During investigation, the police could not trace out Manjeet Singh and concluded that the accused had executed the sale deed in the name of a fictitious person.
The accused had applied for anticipatory bail multiple times and the present instance was the fifth application. Two applications had been dismissed by the Sessions Court and two applications for anticipatory bail had been dismissed by the Court. The accused had even preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court assailing the dismissal of the bail applications. However, the accused had not been arrested till date.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the instant application for anticipatory bail had been brought on the grounds of a change in circumstances. The accused had submitted that further investigation into the identity of Manjeet Singh had revealed that it was not a fictitious person created by the accused but rather another person impersonating as Manjeet Singh. However, the Court noted that the identity of Manjeet Singh remained fictitious since it was someone else impersonating as him. Thus, the court opined that since there was actually no person by name of Manjeet Singh, the circumstances remained unchanged with regards to grant of anticipatory bail.
The Court also highlighted concerns about judicial indiscipline and impropriety. The Court noted that despite repeated dismissal of anticipatory bail applications and even SLPs, the investigating officer had opted not to arrest the accused. The Court further observed that even after dismissal of four applications, the sessions Court had not only entertained another application but also granted interim protection to the accused which led to the filing of a criminal miscellaneous petition whereby the Sessions Court vacated the order for interim protection.
The Court further noted that non-bailable warrants against the accused had been issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 25-11-2024 and had been stayed by the same Magistrate vide order dated 15-1-2025, despite the fact that by then the SLPs had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Acting upon orders of the Court, the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge had furnished reports, explaining the circumstances in which the orders passed by the Court and Supreme Court had been ignored. According to the reports, the dismissal of earlier anticipatory bails as well as dismissal of SLPs by the Supreme Court had not been disclosed.
The Court examined the application filed before the Magistrate and observed that it had been drafted in a misleading manner by stating that the SLPs had been ‘disposed of’ and not ‘dismissed’. The Court opined that such half-truths, written with the intent to mislead the Court were ground enough to deny the accused the relief of anticipatory bail.
The Court further stated that even the investigating officer had concealed the fact of dismissal of anticipatory bail applications from the Magistrate. However, the Court observed that the Magistrate had not been careful enough to probe into the nature of ‘disposal’ of the SLPs, in the sense as to whether the same had been ‘disposed’ or ‘dismissed’. The Magistrate had not even cared to flip to the previous order on record or the record where he himself had recorded that the anticipatory bail applications had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The Court thus opined that since the Magistrate was already informed of the dismissal of the bail applications through his own order, it was wrong on part of the Magistrate to state that the dismissal of applications had not been disclosed to him.
With regards to the explanation advanced by the Additional Sessions Judge, the Court noted that the order dated 12-3-2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge clearly recorded that it was the fourth application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused. However, without ascertaining he status of earlier applications and any change in circumstances, the Sessions Judge directed that no coercive action be taken against the accused until the next date. Thus, the Court opined that it was incorrect of the Additional Sessions Judge to state that the dismissal of anticipatory bail applications had not been disclosed to him.
Therefore, the Court concluded that
-
There was no change in circumstance that warranted a grant of anticipatory bail to the accused;
-
It could not be said that the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge were unaware of the dismissal of earlier anticipatory bail applications; and
-
It appeared to be a case of judicial indiscipline that the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, despite being aware that the anticipatory bail applications of the accused had already been dismissed by the Court and the Supreme Court, stayed the arrest of the accused.
Thus, the Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, and directed that copies of the order be placed before Inspecting Committees of the two judicial officers and the Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action.
[Nikhil Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. No. 1516 of 2025, decided on 24-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sanjay Dewan, Senior Advocate, Vivek Kumar Choudhary, Rohit Arora, Advocates
For the Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP, P.S. Prashant Vihar, Vijay Kasana, Advocates
