'Judicial Indiscipline': Delhi High Court Calls For Action Against Judges Who Stayed Accused's Arrest Despite Rejection Of Anticipatory Bail

The Delhi High Court has called for action against two judicial officers for staying the arrest of an accused in a cheating case, despite the dismissal of his anticipatory bail applications by the High Court as well by Supreme Court in SLP.

“….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,” Justice Girish Kathpalia said.

While dismissing the accused's anticipatory bail application, the Court ordered:

“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.”

The FIR was registered in 2023 for the offences under Section 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Two anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused- Nikhil Jain, were dismissed by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, next two anticipatory bail applications filed by him in the High Court were dismissed in February and May of 2024. The Special Leave Petitions against dismissal of the two anticipatory bail pleas were dismissed by the Supreme Court in September last year. Till date, the accused was not arrested.

In its order, Justice Kathpalia noted that orders protecting the accused from arrest were obtained from Magisterial Court as well as the Court of Sessions, despite dismissal of the SLPs and upholding of two orders of High Court denying him anticipatory bail.

The Court observed that despite dismissal of repeated applications for grant of anticipatory bail, followed by dismissal of even SLPs, the IO opted not to arrest the accused, which was “unusual” in the backdrop of arrest status of the remaining accused persons in the case.

In April, the Court was informed by the IO that the accused had joined investigation only during the period when he was under interim protection granted by the Sessions Judge, but after withdrawal of the same, he absconded and non-bailable warrants against him were alive.

Later, the Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge were called upon to submit their detailed reports in sealed cover explaining the circumstances.

In its reply, the Magistrate said that neither the IO, nor the prosecutor or the defence counsel had pointed out that anticipatory bail applications of the accused had already been dismissed by High Court and the Supreme Court.

Similarly, the Sessions Judge took a stand that neither the anticipatory bail application nor during arguments it was disclosed that the earlier anticipatory bail applications were dismissed by High Court, followed by dismissal of SLPs by the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that there was no mention in the accused's application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants about the dismissal of two anticipatory bail applications were dismissed by High Court and the SLPs arising out of the same.

It said that neither the defence nor the prosecution side informed the Magistrate at the stage of cancellation of non bailable warrants that the anticipatory bail applications of the accused stood dismissed till the Supreme Court.

“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 Court said.

It concluded that there was no change in circumstances to allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail, after denial of anticipatory bail twice by High Court, which was also upheld by the Supreme Court, especially when the accused clearly concealed the dismissal.

The Court further said that the prosecution and investigation side concealed from the Magistrate about dismissal of earlier applications till the Supreme Court, adding that the role of the IO needed 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,” the Court said.

Title: NIKHIL JAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1185

Click here to read order