Court – Delhi High Court Questions Police Inaction While Rejecting Bail Plea
Court – The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of posing as a government official to obtain confidential information from senior authorities. While dismissing the plea, the court also expressed serious concern over the investigating agency’s failure to arrest the accused despite multiple judicial orders rejecting his requests for protection from arrest.
Court Raises Concern Over Delay in Arrest
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the continued failure of the local police to take the accused into custody, even after his anticipatory bail applications were dismissed at different judicial levels, created an impression that he might be receiving assistance. The court remarked that the circumstances suggested there could be more to the matter than what appeared on record and directed that its order be forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police for appropriate action.
The observations came while hearing the anticipatory bail application filed by Manoj Kumar Jha in connection with a case registered at Parliament Street Police Station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Allegations Mentioned by the Prosecution
According to the prosecution, Jha allegedly misrepresented himself as a civil servant in an attempt to access sensitive and confidential information from senior government officials. Investigators have also accused him of falsely presenting himself as a judge of the Patna High Court during the course of the alleged activities.
The prosecution maintained that the accusations involve serious offences related to impersonation and misuse of identity, making custodial interrogation necessary for the ongoing investigation.
Defence Relied on Police Inaction
During the hearing, the defence argued that the investigating agency had not arrested Jha even after his earlier anticipatory bail petitions were rejected and his Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in September 2025. Based on this, the applicant claimed that his custodial interrogation was not essential because the police themselves had chosen not to arrest him for a prolonged period.
The State opposed this argument, stating that the absence of an arrest could not be treated as a valid reason for granting anticipatory bail. The prosecution also questioned why the accused had not been taken into custody despite the Supreme Court declining to extend him protection from arrest.
High Court Finds No Fresh Grounds for Relief
After examining the submissions, the High Court concluded that there had been no significant change in circumstances since the Supreme Court refused anticipatory bail. The court held that the earlier judicial findings continued to apply and did not justify granting the relief sought by the applicant.
The judge further noted that the allegations against the accused, viewed alongside the available material placed before the court, did not support the request for anticipatory bail at this stage of the proceedings.
Criminal History Also Considered
The court also took note of the applicant’s reported criminal background. According to the order, Jha is facing several criminal cases in different states involving allegations such as impersonation, cheating and forgery. The High Court observed that these antecedents, along with the seriousness of the present allegations, weighed against granting him protection from arrest.
Emphasising the need for effective investigation, the court reiterated that the conduct of the investigating agency had raised legitimate concerns. It directed that a copy of the order be sent through the Senior Standing Counsel to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action regarding the apparent delay in executing the arrest.