Delhi High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused allegedly impersonating as a civil servant and attempting to obtain sensitive and confidential information from senior authorities, a Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., refused to grant anticipatory bail, taking note of the serious nature of the allegations, the accused’s extensive criminal antecedents and the absence of any change in circumstances after the Supreme Court had earlier declined to grant him anticipatory bail. The Court further expressed serious concern over the police’s failure to arrest the accused despite repeated rejection of his bail applications and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action.
Background
The allegations against the accused were that he impersonated a civil servant and attempted to obtain sensitive and confidential information from senior authorities. He was also alleged to have impersonated a Judge of the Patna High Court.
The accused had previously approached the courts for anticipatory bail. His earlier applications had been dismissed in 2024 and 2025, and the Supreme Court dismissed his special leave petition on 8 September 2025, thereby declining to interfere with the refusal of anticipatory bail.
Despite these orders, the accused had not been arrested.
The accused argued that the police had not arrested him, despite the dismissal of his earlier anticipatory bail applications, demonstrating that his custodial interrogation was not required. On this basis, he sought anticipatory bail through his third application before the High Court.
The State opposed the application. The Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), in the presence of the investigating officer, also expressed concern that the police had not taken steps to arrest the accused despite the Supreme Court having found that this was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Analysis and Decision
The Court took note of the accused’s extensive criminal antecedents. The record reflected his involvement in multiple FIRs across Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Bihar, Chandigarh and Gurugram, involving allegations including impersonation, cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and related offences.
Among the antecedents noted by the Court was an FIR in which the accused was alleged to have impersonated a Patna High Court Judge. In another case registered by the CBI, he was arrested for allegedly cheating a person of ₹80 lakhs by posing as the Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The Court also noted the recovery of 200 SIM cards from his premises in Bokaro, Jharkhand, and the alleged transfer of the cheated amount through hawala to Kolkata.
The Court held that, apart from the serious nature of the allegations, the accused’s extensive criminal antecedents and status as a habitual offender weighed against granting him anticipatory bail.
The Court was also guided by the principle of judicial discipline, particularly because the Supreme Court had already considered the matter and had not found it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Importantly, the Court noted that there had been no change in circumstances after the Supreme Court’s order that could justify reconsideration of the accused’s request for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the Court held that the case was not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.
While refusing bail, the Court expressed serious concern over the police’s failure to arrest the accused despite repeated dismissal of his anticipatory bail applications, including by the Supreme Court.
The Court observed that the continued inaction by the local police created an impression that the accused was being helped and that “there is something more that meets the eye”.
In view of this, the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police through the Senior Standing Counsel for information and necessary action.
[Manoj Kumar Jha v. State ( NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 3143/2026, decided on 6-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Accused: Aditya Kapoor, Advocate
For Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Uttam Singh