The Delhi High Court has directed that action be taken against two judicial officers who stayed the arrest of an accused in a cheating and forgery case, even though both the High Court and Supreme Court had already refused his anticipatory bail pleas.

The controversy stems from the sale of a Prashant Vihar property in 2021. Nikhil Jain (Accused/Applicant) sold the property for ₹1.32 crore to complainant Tilak Raj Jain and his partner, only for it to later emerge that the land was never allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and remained a vacant plot. The chain of documents—including a lease deed, perpetual lease, and conveyance deed—was found to be forged, with the alleged transferor “Manjeet Singh” later exposed as a fictitious identity.

Jain had filed four earlier anticipatory bail applications—two before the Sessions Court and two before the High Court—all of which were dismissed. The Supreme Court too, in September 2024, refused to intervene, rejecting Jain’s Special Leave Petitions after noting that the seller from whom Jain claimed to have purchased the property was non-existent.

At the outset, the accused/applicant contended that the present, fifth application for anticipatory bail was maintainable on the ground of a change in circumstances. However, upon perusal of the record and submissions, the Bench was not persuaded by this contention and found no such change in circumstances after dismissal of the SLPs that could justify entertaining a fresh application.

However, the dismissal of the application did not conclude the matter, as the Bench went on to record serious concerns regarding judicial indiscipline and impropriety.

The Court highlighted unusual conduct on the part of the Investigating Officer, noting that despite repeated dismissals of the accused’s anticipatory bail applications by the High Court and even the Supreme Court, no arrest was made. It was further brought to the Court’s attention that both the Magistertate Court and the Sessions Court had granted interim protection to the accused even after the dismissal of the SLPs. Although those protections were subsequently withdrawn, the accused still remained at large without being arrested.

Thus, the Bench turned to a matter of graver concern, namely that despite the dismissal of four anticipatory bail applications, including two before the High Court, and the subsequent rejection of SLPs by the Supreme Court on 02.09.2024, the Additional Sessions Judge-04, North District, Rohini, not only entertained yet another anticipatory bail application on 12.03.2025 but also proceeded to grant interim protection to the accused.

Consequently. The Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge were directed to submit detailed reports in sealed cover explaining the circumstances.

The Magistrate report recored that neither the Investigating Officer, the prosecutor, nor the defence counsel informed him that the accused’s anticipatory bail applications had already been dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Further, it was also mentioned that said application, on behalf of accused/applicant it was mentioned that the said SLP had been “disposed of” (and not “dismissed”) by the Supreme Court.

Likewise, the Sessions Judge maintained that neither in the anticipatory bail application nor during the course of arguments was it disclosed that the earlier bail applications had been rejected by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court.

Upon perusal of both the reports, the court observed that there is no mention at all in the said application submitted to the Magistrate that two anticipatory bail applications were dismissed by this court and the SLPs arising out of the same were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

However, the bench also stated that “But at the same time, even the learned Magistrate was apparently not careful to apply mind and probe as to what was the nature of “disposal” of the SLPs, in the sense as to whether the same were “dismissed” or “disposed of with some directions”. The learned Magistrate did not care to even flip to just the previous order on his record.”

The court noted that the defence counsel, investigating officer, and prosecutor had concealed from the Magistrate that the anticipatory bail applications of the accused/applicant had been rejected up to the Supreme Court. Although the Magistrate took the defence of concealment, the court was not persuaded to accept it, since the Magistrate was already aware of this fact through his own order dated 25.11.2024 and the submissions of the complainant’s counsel

Thus, after due consideration the court came down on the following conclusions:

“(a) 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; 

(b) 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;

(c) 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; and 

(d) 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.”

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

Case Title: Nikhil Jain V. State of NCT of Delhi., Bail Appln No. 1516/2025

Advocate for Petitoner: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kumar Choudhary and Mr. Rohit Arora, Advocates.

Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State. SI Prashant Kumar in person. Mr. Vijay Kasana, Advocate for complainant