Delhi High Court Seeks Disciplinary Action Against Magistrate & ASJ For Granting Protection To Accused Despite SC, HC Bail Rejections
Despite bail rejections, the accused avoided arrest due to interim protection by lower courts.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has called for disciplinary action against a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) posted at the Rohini Courts for granting protection from arrest to an accused whose anticipatory bail applications had already been dismissed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked that the actions of the judicial officers appeared to be in clear violation of established judicial discipline.
"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," the Court noted.
Background
The observations came during the hearing of the fifth anticipatory bail application filed by an accused in a property fraud case involving allegations of forgery and cheating. He had previously filed multiple anticipatory bail applications, all of which were dismissed by the Delhi High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court, where Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were also rejected.
Despite the repeated rejection of his bail pleas, he evaded arrest owing to interim protection orders passed by the Magistrate and later by the ASJ, effectively halting coercive action by the police.
Findings
The Court found not only the conduct of the two judicial officers problematic, but also pointed out serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer and the public prosecutor, stating that their roles should also be scrutinized.
The Court discovered that during proceedings before the Magistrate, the defence counsel, investigating officer, and the prosecutor deliberately withheld information about the earlier dismissal of his bail petitions by the High Court and Supreme Court. However, the Court noted that the Magistrate was fully aware of the dismissal of the earlier bail applications, as the issue was explicitly mentioned in an order dated November 25, 2024, and also brought up by the complainant’s counsel during the hearing.
"So, it is wrong on the part of the learned Magistrate to say that dismissal of anticipatory bail applications was not disclosed to him," the Court said.
With regard to the ASJ, the Court observed that the judge issued an order granting interim protection to the accused without verifying the status of previous bail applications or determining whether there had been any change in circumstances that could justify a new order.
"The learned Additional Sessions Judge going by the submission of learned defence counsel that the accused/applicant was willing to join investigation, directed that till next date no coercive action be taken against the accused/applicant," the Court recorded.
The Court emphasized that, given the facts on record, it was implausible that either the Magistrate or the ASJ were unaware of the dismissal of prior bail pleas. The conduct, he said, reflected a serious breach of judicial protocol.
"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 Court ordered.
Cause Title: Nikhil Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, [2025:DHC:8537]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sanjay Dewan, with Advocates Vivek Kumar Choudhary and Rohit Arora
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Ahlawat, Advocate Vijay Kasana
