The Delhi High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to investigate how an Investigating Officer sought approval to travel for the "search and arrest" of an accused person even though the accused was already enjoying interim protection from arrest granted by a court. The Court also noted apparent discrepancies in the official request seeking permission for the proposed investigation trip.
Background of the Case
The applicant had earlier been granted interim protection by the Delhi High Court on May 14, 2026. During the latest hearing, the prosecution informed the Court that the applicant had joined the investigation, but additional documents were still required from him. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to provide a list of the required documents within two days, while the applicant agreed to furnish any documents available in his possession.
The applicant also placed additional documents on record through an affidavit, including information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. One of those documents related to an official request made by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to travel to Mumbai for the "search and arrest of the accused" in connection with the present FIR and another connected FIR.
Court's Observation
The applicant argued that the request for permission to travel had been submitted, forwarded, and approved on May 8, 2026, during the period when interim protection from arrest had already been granted by the Sessions Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Taking note of the submission, Justice Prateek Jalan found it necessary to seek an explanation regarding the circumstances under which such a request was processed and approved.
The Court observed:
"The concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police is directed to inquire into the matter and file a report before this Court regarding the circumstances in which such request came to be made and approved."
The Court further noted that the permission request appeared to contain "apparent errors and discrepancies," including inconsistencies relating to the destination for which permission had been sought.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the complainant requested permission to place additional documents on record. The Court allowed the request and permitted the documents to be filed before the next date of hearing.
Court's Decision
The Delhi High Court directed the Investigating Officer to provide the applicant with a list of additional documents required for the investigation within two days. It also ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct an inquiry into the approval of the request seeking permission to search for and arrest the accused despite the subsisting interim protection, and to submit a report before the Court.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 14, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Amit Jain v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1896/2026
Judge: Justice Prateek Jalan
Decision Date: July 3, 2026
-300x169.webp)
