The Delhi High Court on 7 August refused anticipatory bail to Manoj Kumar Jha, a man accused of serially impersonating senior government and constitutional functionaries — including a civil servant, a judge of the Patna High Court, and the Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) — to extract sensitive information and allegedly defraud victims. In a pointed rebuke, the court also questioned why Delhi Police had not arrested the accused despite multiple bail rejections, including one by the Supreme Court.

What the Court Ruled

A single-judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed Jha's anticipatory bail plea, describing him as a 'habitual offender' and noting there had been no change in circumstances since the Supreme Court declined to grant him anticipatory bail on 8 September 2025. The judge cited strict judicial discipline and the gravity of the allegations in rejecting the application.

'Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail,' Justice Kathpalia said in the order.

Key Allegations Against the Accused

The case originated from an FIR registered in 2024 at the Parliament Street police station in New Delhi, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to the prosecution, Jha impersonated a civil servant to obtain confidential information from senior authorities. He was separately accused of impersonating a Patna High Court judge in Gurugram.

The court further noted that Jha allegedly cheated a person of ₹80 lakh by posing as the NHAI Chairman in a CBI case. Additional FIRs involving cheating, impersonation, and forgery have been registered against him in Haryana, Bihar, Punjab, and Chandigarh.

Court's Concern Over Police Inaction

Perhaps the sharpest observation in the order was directed not at the accused, but at the local police. Justice Kathpalia expressed surprise that despite the dismissal of repeated anticipatory bail applications — all the way up to the Supreme Court — Delhi Police had taken no steps to arrest Jha.

'I am also surprised by the fact that despite dismissal of repeated anticipatory bail applications till the 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,' the judge observed.

Notably, the Additional Public Prosecutor, in the presence of the investigating officer during the hearing, also flagged concern that no arrest had been made despite the apex court's refusal of anticipatory bail. The defence had argued this inaction itself indicated custodial interrogation was unnecessary — a contention the court rejected.

What Happens Next

The Delhi High Court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police through the Senior Standing Counsel for 'information and necessary action.' The move puts formal pressure on the police to act, though whether an arrest follows will be closely watched. With multiple FIRs across states and a Supreme Court rejection on record, Jha's legal options for pre-arrest protection appear to be narrowing significantly.