The Delhi High Court dismissed the fifth anticipatory bail application of businessman Nikhil Jain, accused in a multi-crore property fraud case in Prashant Vihar. Justice Girish Kathpalia not only refused relief but also raised sharp questions about how lower courts entertained repeated pleas despite clear orders from both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Background
The case stems from a 2023 FIR lodged by complainant Tilak Raj Jain, who alleged he was duped into buying a forged property for over ₹1.32 crore. According to the complaint, Nikhil Jain and his associates fabricated conveyance documents of a vacant DDA plot and sold it off as genuine property. When the complainant later tried to resell, the fraud surfaced.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court directs reconsideration of dismissed constable’s case under 2015 CAPF medical guidelines
Investigations revealed that a fictitious “Manjeet Singh” figure was used in the paperwork, and when police tried to trace him, they found no such person existed. The Supreme Court, in September 2024, had already rejected Jain’s plea, noting the suspicious circumstances.
Despite this, Jain managed to secure interim protection from arrest multiple times through orders of magistrates and sessions judges, even after higher courts had turned him down.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kathpalia minced no words. He noted that “there is no change in circumstances warranting a fresh bail application.” The bench added, “Manjeet Singh continues to be a fictitious person. What Suraj did was impersonation. Nothing new has emerged.”
The court rejected the defence argument that repayment by a co-accused should tilt the case in Jain’s favour. “Bail courts are not money recovery forums,” the judge observed, stressing that refund of money does not erase criminal liability.
Perhaps the strongest remarks came on the conduct of lower courts. Justice Kathpalia pointed out that both a Rohini Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge granted interim relief to Jain even though records before them showed the Supreme Court’s dismissal of earlier pleas. The court remarked that this smacked of “judicial indiscipline and impropriety.”
Read Also:- Delhi High Court rules Chand Mehra refund dispute with British Airways not a commercial case under law
“Such half-truths presented before the Magistrate were clearly aimed at misleading the court. The accused succeeded in doing so,” the order recorded. The judge also expressed concern that the investigating officer and prosecutors concealed crucial facts about past dismissals.
Justice Kathpalia firmly dismissed the anticipatory bail plea, calling it a misuse of process.
Case Title: Nikhil Jain vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1516/2025
