Delhi High Court Requests Police Report on Attempted Arrest Despite Court Protection
The Delhi High Court has called for a detailed report from the Delhi Police following an incident where an investigating officer sought to apprehend an accused individual, despite a judicial order that protected the person from arrest. This matter was highlighted in the case Amit Jain v State Govt of NCT of Delhi.
Justice Prateek Jalan, on July 3, instructed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) involved to investigate the circumstances under which the officer was permitted to travel to Mumbai to “search and arrest” the accused, Amit Jain, while interim protection was in place. The court ordered the DCP to submit a report on how such a request was made and sanctioned.
“In these circumstances, 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, despite the above position,” stated Justice Jalan.
Amit Jain, who has been implicated in a cheating case filed at the Subhash Place police station, sought anticipatory bail. The First Information Report (FIR) accuses Jain of defrauding a complainant of ₹5.63 crore in a deal involving 25,000 unlisted shares of the National Stock Exchange (NSE).
During the proceedings, Jain’s legal representative submitted additional documentation, including one obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This document purportedly revealed that the investigating officer requested approval from a superior to travel to Mumbai “for the purpose of the investigation (search and arrest of the accused)” concerning the current FIR and another related FIR. The request was initially made by the investigating officer, passed through the Station House Officer, and subsequently approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on May 8, while interim protection was still effective.
More Read
The High Court further acknowledged that it had extended interim protection to Jain on May 14. Justice Jalan pointed to apparent inconsistencies and errors in the permission request, particularly regarding the travel destination for which authorization was sought.
Meanwhile, the State informed the Court that Jain had cooperated with the investigation following the High Court’s grant of interim protection. However, it was noted that certain additional documents from Jain were still pending submission. The Court instructed the investigating officer to provide Jain with a list of the necessary documents within two days. Jain’s counsel assured the Court that any documents in the accused’s possession would be handed over to the investigation team.
The Court also allowed the complainant to submit supplementary documents in preparation for the next hearing, scheduled for July 14. Representing the accused were Advocates Saurav Agrawal, Vibhu Anshuman, Ravi Sharma, Parmeet Singh, Abdul Razzaq, and Siddhant Raj. Assistant Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya, along with advocate Abhimanyu Arya and Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar from PS Subhash Place, appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Manu Sharma, accompanied by advocates Abhyuday Sharma, Nimish Chib, Rahul Lather, Deepak Rajwar, Ambar Chaurasia, and Harshita Bhati, represented the complainant.
