Delhi High Court orders action against Magistrate, Sessions Judge for staying arrest despite SC, HC rejecting anticipatory bail

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday called for action against a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) who stayed the arrest of a man despite his anticipatory bail petitions being rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court [Nikhil Jain v State of NCT of Delhi].

Justice Girish Kathpalia said that both the judges, posted at the Rohini Courts, violated 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 observed.

It also found fault with the prosecution and the investigation team and said they should be investigated as well.

The Court ordered its judgment to be sent to the Delhi High Court Registrar General and Delhi Police Commissioner for necessary action.

"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."

Justice Kathpalia passed the order while rejecting the fifth anticipatory bail application filed by one Nikhil Jain, an accused in a property fraud case involving forgery and cheating.

All his earlier petitions and appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed. Despite these setbacks, Jain avoided arrest due to interim protections granted by the Magistrate and the ASJ.

After considering the case, the High Court noted that the defence counsel, the investigating officer and the prosecutor concealed from Magistrate details about the dismissal of the anticipatory bail applications by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

However, about dismissal of those applications, the Magistrate had clear knowledge through his own order dated November 25, 2024 and specific submissions by complainant's counsel.

"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 High Court said.

With respect to the ASJ's conduct, the Court said that the judge passed the order without ascertaining the status of earlier applications and change, if any, in the circumstances.

"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 High Court noted. 

Ultimately, the Court said that it cannot believe that the Magistrate or the ASJ were unaware of the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail applications.

Therefore, it called for action against both the judicial officers.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Dewan with advocates Vivek Kumar Choudhary and Rohit Arora appeared for Nikhil Jain.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Amit Ahlawat represented the State.

Advocate Vijay Kasana represented the complainant.

[Read Order]