‘Judicial Indiscipline’: Delhi High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail in Cheating Case, Orders Action Against Magistrate and Judge for Staying Arrest Despite Earlier Rejections by High Court and Supreme Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia has refused a renewed anticipatory bail plea in a property cheating case. In doing so, the Court also directed action against a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge who had stayed the accused’s arrest even after the High Court and later the Supreme Court had declined similar bail requests. Holding that no fresh grounds existed to justify relief, the Court described the officers’ intervention as judicial impropriety and referred the matter to inspecting committees and the Police Commissioner for appropriate examination.
The matter before the High Court of Delhi arose from FIR No. 477/2023 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar. The case involved allegations of cheating, forgery, conspiracy, and the use of fabricated documents in relation to the sale of a property. The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with the case. This was his fifth such application, two of which had been dismissed by the Sessions Court, and two by the High Court. Special Leave Petitions filed against those orders were also dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The prosecution’s case, based on the complaint of Tilak Raj Jain, was that the complainant had been induced by the accused persons to purchase a property in Prashant Vihar, Delhi. The title chain showed a series of documents beginning with a lease deed executed in favour of Devender Kumar, followed by a conveyance deed allegedly executed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 2021 in favour of Manjeet Singh. The said property was then sold to the accused by way of a sale deed in October 2021, and shortly thereafter resold to the complainant. Payment of ₹1.32 crore was made through cheques and RTGS. Later, when the complainant attempted to resell the property, it was discovered that the conveyance deed in favour of Manjeet Singh was forged, and that the property was in fact a vacant plot still with the DDA.
The DDA confirmed that no such allotment had ever been made, and that the lease deed and conveyance deed were fabricated. The prosecution concluded that the accused, along with associates, created false documents to execute fraudulent transfers of the property. During investigation, the person Manjeet Singh could not be traced, and the prosecution treated him as fictitious. The applicant contended that later inquiries revealed one Suraj impersonating as Manjeet Singh, amounting to a change in circumstances. It was further argued that a co-accused had repaid a substantial portion of the money to the complainant.
The State and the complainant’s counsel opposed the application, contending that there was no material change since the dismissal of the earlier applications, and that repayment could not be a ground for granting bail. The statutory provisions invoked were Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court began by noting the legal position that “after dismissal of an application seeking bail or anticipatory bail, fresh application before the same court would lie only in case of change in circumstances.” It recorded that the accused relied on what he described as changed circumstances, but the Court disagreed.
On the claim that subsequent investigation had identified one Suraj impersonating as Manjeet Singh, the Court stated: “Manjeet Singh continues to be a fictitious person. What Suraj did as per prosecution is impersonation as Manjeet Singh. It is nobody’s case that subsequent to dismissal of SLPs, the investigator has found the person named Manjeet Singh. Manjeet Singh remains a name in fiction. On this aspect, certainly there is no change in circumstances.”
The argument that a co-accused had repaid a substantial part of the cheated sum was also rejected. The Court observed: “This also, to my mind cannot be taken as a change in circumstances. For, in a plethora of judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts including this court have categorically held that the bail courts not being a money recovery forum, return of money or promise thereof cannot be a relevant consideration while deciding a bail application.”
Addressing the submission that the applicant himself had been cheated, the Court recorded: “Suffice it to note that conduct of the accused/applicant, having purchased the subject property on 16.10.2021 and having sold away the same to the complainant de facto immediately thereafter on 29.10.2021 prima facie reflects his complicity. Even otherwise, this argument always existed even prior to the dismissal of anticipatory bail applications by this court followed by dismissal of SLPs by the Supreme Court.”
The Court then turned to concerns about judicial discipline. It observed: “Even after dismissal of as many as four anticipatory bail applications, including two before this court, followed by dismissal of the SLPs… the learned Additional Sessions Judge… not just entertained another application of the accused/applicant for anticipatory bail on 12.03.2025, but also granted interim protection.”
On the Magistrate’s order staying non-bailable warrants, the Court stated that “such half truth presented on behalf of the accused/applicant in his application before the Magistrate was clearly aimed at misleading the Magistrate, in which the accused/applicant succeeded. This successful attempt… in itself should be a ground to deny him the relief of anticipatory bail.”
Finally, the Court recorded its view that “it appears to be a case of judicial indiscipline” where subordinate courts acted contrary to the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court.
Concluding the matter, the Court ordered: “Therefore, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.”
It further recorded: “that there is no change in circumstances, warranting the present application for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant after denial of anticipatory bail twice by this court was upheld by the Supreme Court and the accused/applicant clearly concealed the dismissal of those previous applications till the Supreme Court, so this application deserves to be dismissed;”
“That the prosecution and investigation side concealed from the learned Magistrate about dismissal of those earlier applications till the Supreme Court, so role of the IO/SI Prashant Kumar of PS Prashant Vihar needs to be probed by the concerned authorities;”
“That notwithstanding the aforesaid, as discussed above, it cannot be believed that the learned Magistrate or the learned Additional Sessions Judge were unaware of the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail applications of the accused/applicant till the Supreme Court;”
“That it appears to be a case of judicial indiscipline that the Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi and the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi despite being aware that two anticipatory bail applications of the accused/applicant had already been dismissed by this court, followed by dismissal of the SLPs, stayed the arrest of the accused/applicant.”
“Copies of this order be sent to the worthy Registrar General, Delhi High Court for being placed before the Inspecting Committees of the said two Judicial Officers and the worthy Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kumar Choudhary and Mr. Rohit Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State, Mr. Vijay Kasana,
Case Title: Nikhil Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 8537
Case Number: Bail Appln. 1516/2025
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
