|
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of impersonating a civil servant to obtain sensitive and confidential information from senior government authorities, while expressing concern over the failure of the police to arrest him despite repeated rejection of his bail pleas up to the Supreme Court.
Observing that the continued inaction created an impression that the accused "is being helped" and that "there is something more that meets the eye," the Court directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police for necessary action. Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of Manoj Kumar Jha in connection with an FIR registered at Parliament Street Police Station under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the prosecution, Jha allegedly impersonated a civil servant and attempted to obtain sensitive and confidential information from various senior government authorities. He is also accused of impersonating a judge of the Patna High Court. The applicant argued that despite rejection of his earlier anticipatory bail pleas and dismissal of his Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court in September 2025, the investigating agency had not arrested him, indicating that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State opposed the plea. The prosecution also expressed concern over the failure to arrest the accused despite the Supreme Court's refusal to grant him anticipatory bail. Rejecting the plea, the High Court observed that there had been no change in circumstances after the Supreme Court refused anticipatory bail. It also noted that the applicant was facing multiple criminal cases across several states involving allegations including impersonation, cheating and forgery, and held that his antecedents and the nature of the allegations did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. Justice Kathpalia further remarked that despite repeated dismissal of the accused's anticipatory bail applications up to the Supreme Court, the local police had taken no steps to arrest him. The Court said such inaction conveyed an impression that the accused was being helped and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police through the Senior Standing Counsel for information and necessary action. (ANI)
|
