| |
CDJ 2026 DHC 529
|
| Court : High Court of Delhi |
| Case No : Bail Appln. No. 3143 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA |
| Parties : Manoj Kumar Jha Versus State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Aditya Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP. |
| Date of Judgment : 06-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
BNS - Section 204/337/340(2) -
Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 6376,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 204/337/340(2) of BNS
- Sections 170/186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 318(2)/318(4)/319(2)/336(2)/336(3)/338/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 170/420/467/468/471/201/184/511 of the IPC
- Sections 170/201/419/420 of the IPC
- Sections 419/420/506 of the IPC
- Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC
- Sections 467/468 of the IPC
- Sections 419/420 of the IPC
- Sections 147/148/323/324/325/307/504/44/379 of the IPC
- Sections 171F/188 of the IPC
2. Catch Words:
- anticipatory bail
- impersonation
- habitual offender
- arrest
- dismissal
- Supreme Court
3. Summary:
The accused applied for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 81/2024 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The allegations involve impersonation of a civil servant and a High Court judge, along with a history of numerous FIRs across several states for offences such as cheating, forgery, and other IPC crimes. The counsel argued that the police had not arrested the accused despite earlier dismissals of bail applications, suggesting no need for custody. The State highlighted that the Supreme Court had previously declined anticipatory bail and that there were no changed circumstances. The Court noted the accused’s status as a habitual offender and the lack of police action as indicative of possible undue assistance. Consequently, the Court found no justification to grant anticipatory bail and ordered the order to be communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Judgment (Oral)
1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 81/2024 of PS Parliament Street for offence under Section 204/337/340(2) of BNS.
2. Broadly speaking, the allegations against the accused/applicant are that he impersonated as civil servant and tried to obtain sensitive confidential information from various senior authorities. The accused/applicant also allegedly impersonated as a judge of the Patna High Court.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that despite dismissal of anticipatory bail applications way back in the year 2024, followed by 2025 and dismissal of SLP on 08.09.2025, the police have not been arresting the accused/applicant, which shows that his custody is not required. Therefore, this third anticipatory bail application in the High Court has been filed.
4. Learned APP for State (in presence of IO/SI Uttam Singh) also expresses anguish that despite the Hon'ble Supreme Court having found it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, the police has not taken any action to arrest the accused/applicant.
5. As reflected from record, the accused/applicant is involved in the following FIRs:
"a. FIR no. 184/18, under Sections 170/186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") at Police Station - Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, wherein, it is alleged that he impersonated himself as Mr. BK Jha, Judge of Patna High Court.
b. FIR no. RC0032021A0029 dated 13th July, 2021, registered at Police Station - ACB, CBI, wherein, CBI arrested the applicant for cheating a person to the tune of Rs. 80 Lakhs by posing as Chairman of National Highway Authority of India. 200 SIM cards were recovered from his Bokaro, Jharkhand premises and the cheated amount i.e. Rs. 80 Lakhs was transferred through hawala to Kolkata and collected by the applicant himself.
c. FIR no. 424/24, under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station - Babubarhi, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar.
d. FIR no. 429/24, under Sections 318(2)/318(4)/319(2)/336(2)/ 336(3)/338/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station - Babubarhi, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar.
e. FIR no. 55/15, under Sections 170/420/467/468/471/201/184/511 of the IPC, registered at Police Station - Ambala, Haryana.
f. FIR no. 422/18, under Sections 170/201/419/420 of the IPC, registered at Police Station - Bhiwani Civil Lines, Haryana.
g. FIR no. 51/15, under Sections 419/420/506 of the IPC, registered at Police Station - Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana, Punjab.
h. FIR no. 35/16, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station - Sector 17, Chandigarh.
i. FIR no. 26/17, under Sections 467/468 of the IPC, registered at Police Station - Laheria Sarai, District - Darbhanga, Bihar.
j. FIR no. 592/13, under Sections 419/420 of the IPC, registered at Police Station - Laheria Sarai, District - Darbhanga, Bihar.
k. FIR no. 16/13, under Sections 147/148/323/324/325/307/504/ 44/379 of the IPC, registered at Police Station - Babubarhi, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar.
l. FIR no. 125/10, under Sections 171F/188 of the IPC, registered at Police Station - Babubarhi, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar."
6. Apart from the nature of allegations, coupled with the fact that the accused/applicant is a habitual offender, I am also governed by strict judicial discipline. As mentioned above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also did not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and in any case, subsequent to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no change of circumstances.
7. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
8. At the same time, I am also surprised by the fact that despite dismissal of repeated anticipatory bail applications till Hon'ble Supreme Court, the local police appear to have taken no steps at all to arrest the accused/applicant, which conveys an impression that accused/applicant is being helped and there is something more that meets the eye. That being so, copy of this order be sent to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police through the learned Senior Standing Counsel for information and necessary action.
|
| |
