New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on two district court judges who, in a glaring case of insubordination, extended interim protection to an accused in a property forgery case, despite the Supreme Court rejecting his anticipatory bail application.
Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected the fifth bail application by the accused, Nikhil Jain, on Wednesday and criticised the two judicial officers for “serious concern about judicial indiscipline and impropriety”.
“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 high court said.
Jain, accused of forgery, managed to secure two different protection orders from Rohini Courts in January and March despite his earlier four anticipatory bail applications being dismissed last year—two by the sessions court and two by the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court also dismissed his Special Leave Petition (SLP) on 2 September 2024.
Despite this chain of rejections, the accused has not been arrested to date.
The high court said it found the claims of both officers that they were misled by the concealment of the case history “untenable”, noting that their own records and the investigating officer’s status report had explicitly mentioned the Supreme Court dismissals.
During the apex court hearing, the state argued that the person from whom Nikhil Jain allegedly purchased the disputed property was “fictitious,” which led the Supreme Court to refuse bail.
The Delhi High Court found that the defence counsel, Investigating Officer Prashant Kumar of Prashant Vihar Police Station, and the prosecutor had concealed facts from the lower courts. Even the application misleadingly stated that the SLPs were “disposed of” instead of “dismissed.”
Justice Kathpalia dismissed the bail plea and directed that copies of the order be sent to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court for examination of the two judicial officers by Inspecting Committees and to the Commissioner of Police for action against the investigating officer.
The forgery behind Delhi HC’s bail hearing
The case stems from the fraudulent sale of a non-existent property by Nikhil Jain to the complainant, Tilak Raj Jain, in 2021.
Tilak Raj Jain, who knew the accused and co-accused, chartered accountant Sushil Singla, was offered a property in Prashant Vihar in mid-2021.
The title chain included a fabricated conveyance deed dated 27 August 2021 in the name of co-accused Manjeet Singh, who allegedly sold it to Nikhil Jain on 14 October 2021. Nikhil Jain then sold the property to the complainant two weeks later on 28 October 2021.
The fraud surfaced in September 2023, when the complainant attempted to resell the property and discovered the deed was forged. The DDA confirmed the land was a vacant plot never allotted to anyone.
Nikhil Jain first went to the Delhi High Court in February 2024 after Tilak Raj Jain filed an FIR.
On 12 March this year, the Rohini additional sessions court entertained a fresh bail plea and granted interim protection, but the High Court intervened and vacated it on 28 March.
On 15 January, the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) of Rohini stayed non-bailable warrants issued earlier, even though the SLPs had already been dismissed.
Even though both officers claimed they were misled by the concealment of the case history, the high court found this untenable.
The fifth bail plea was argued on the ground of a “change in circumstances” after the Supreme Court’s dismissal in 2024. The defence claimed the seller was not fictitious but one Suraj, impersonating Manjeet Singh, and that a co-accused had already refunded most of the money.
The high court rejected the argument, saying there was no real change in circumstances. “Manjeet Singh remains a name in fiction even if Suraj impersonated him,” Justice Kathpalia observed.
The court reiterated that bail courts are not “money recovery forums” and repayment does not wipe out criminal liability.
The judge also noted that Nikhil Jain’s purchase of the property on 16 October 2021 and reselling it just days later on 29 October showed “prima facie complicity”, undermining his claim of being a victim.
Senior Delhi High Court advocate Sanjay Dewan, who represented the accused in this case, explained to ThePrint what changed after the Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea last year in September.
“The bank accounts of the main accused were attached; the money had come to the complainant, which has not been appreciated by the court,” he said.
When asked about the recent judgement denying anticipatory bail to his client, Dewan appreciated the judge’s handling of the material before them. He also indicated that he may move the matter to the Supreme Court.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)