The High Court of Delhi, while dismissing the fifth anticipatory bail application of an accused in a property forgery case, has taken serious exception to the conduct of two lower court judges and an investigating officer for granting protection from arrest despite the Supreme Court having previously denied relief. Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the plea filed by Nikhil Jain in FIR No. 477/2023, registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar for offences including cheating and forgery, and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General for action against the judicial officers and to the Commissioner of Police for a probe into the IO’s role.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a complaint filed by Tilak Raj Jain, who alleged he was cheated by the applicant, Nikhil Jain, and a co-accused, Sushil Singla. The complainant was induced to purchase a property in Prashant Vihar, Delhi, for a sum of ₹1,32,00,000/-.
According to the prosecution, the title documents presented to the complainant were forged. The property’s chain of title was shown to originate from a DDA Lease Deed, eventually leading to a Conveyance Deed dated 27.08.2021 in favour of a “Manjeet Singh”. Nikhil Jain claimed to have purchased the property from this Manjeet Singh via a Sale Deed dated 14.10.2021 and sold it to the complainant merely two weeks later on 28.10.2021.
However, during an enquiry, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) confirmed that the property was a vacant plot that had never been allotted to anyone and that the purported Conveyance Deed was a forged document. The investigation concluded that “Manjeet Singh” was a fictitious person used to execute the fraudulent transaction.
Arguments of the Parties
The present application was the fifth attempt by Nikhil Jain to secure anticipatory bail. Two applications had been dismissed by the Court of Sessions, and two subsequent applications were dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging the High Court’s orders were also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.09.2024.
Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Senior Advocate for the applicant, argued that a “change in circumstances” warranted a fresh consideration for bail. He contended that the investigation had revealed that the person who sold the property was not fictitious but was one Suraj impersonating Manjeet Singh. He further submitted that a co-accused, Pradeep, had paid a substantial amount to the complainant, and that the applicant, Nikhil Jain, was himself a victim of cheating.
Opposing the plea, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, the Additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Vijay Kasana, counsel for the complainant, argued that there was no substantive change in circumstances and the application was not maintainable. They maintained that a settlement between a co-accused and the complainant could not be a ground for granting anticipatory bail.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Girish Kathpalia found no merit in the applicant’s arguments, holding that there was no change in circumstances. The court observed, “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.”
Regarding the return of money by a co-accused, the court reiterated the settled legal position that bail courts are not a money recovery forum. “Whatever amount is paid by the person accused of cheating to the person cheated is at the most towards discharge of civil liability of the former; and such payment does not absolve the accused of his criminal liability,” the judgment stated. The court also found the applicant’s complicity was prima facie reflected in the fact that he sold the property just two weeks after purchasing it.
Serious Concerns over Judicial Impropriety
The High Court expressed serious concern over the actions of the lower judiciary after the Supreme Court had dismissed the applicant’s SLPs. The judgment noted that despite the finality of the orders, a Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 and an Additional Sessions Judge-04 of the Rohini Courts had granted the applicant interim protection from arrest.
The court had called for reports from both judicial officers. In their defence, both the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge claimed that the fact of the dismissal of prior bail applications by the High Court and the Supreme Court was concealed from them by the applicant and the prosecution.
However, Justice Kathpalia rejected these explanations. The court found that the applicant had “cleverly drafted” his application before the Magistrate, stating the SLP was “disposed of” instead of “dismissed,” which was a “half truth…clearly aimed at misleading the Magistrate.”
The court also found that the IO, SI Prashant Kumar, concealed the dismissals from the Magistrate. Crucially, the court noted that the Magistrate’s own record, specifically an order dated 25.11.2024, mentioned the dismissal of the SLP. Similarly, the Additional Sessions Judge had been provided with a status report by the IO which explicitly stated that the applicant’s bail plea had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The judgment concluded that it was “wrong on the part of the learned Magistrate to say that dismissal of anticipatory bail applications was not disclosed to him,” and the same applied to the Additional Sessions Judge.
The court made the following “irresistible conclusions”:
- There was no change in circumstances to warrant a fresh bail application.
- The prosecution and investigation side concealed crucial facts from the Magistrate, warranting a probe into the IO’s role.
- It cannot be believed that the Magistrate or the Additional Sessions Judge were unaware of the prior dismissals.
- It “appears to be a case of judicial indiscipline” that the lower courts stayed the arrest of the applicant despite being aware of the High Court and Supreme Court orders.
Based on these findings, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed. The court directed that copies of its order be sent to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court for placement before the Inspecting Committees of the two judicial officers, and to the Commissioner of Police for “information and necessary action.”
