New Delhi, Dec 17 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has raised significant alarms regarding the practice of submitting parallel bail applications in various courts without proper disclosure.

A single-judge Bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma criticized the accused for filing a new bail plea in the trial court while not revealing that a similar request was already under consideration at the Delhi High Court.

Justice Sharma, while choosing not to interfere with the regular bail granted to an accused in a case filed under Sections 363, 376, and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, remarked that restricting his liberty at this point would not fulfill the aims of justice.

"With a sense of disapproval, this court notes that in the contents of the bail application submitted to the trial court, it was not disclosed that the present bail application had been filed before this court and notice had been issued," the bench stated, emphasizing that such actions "would essentially amount to suppression of a material fact".

It underlined that every advocate must act with "fairness, candour, and transparency", highlighting that failing to disclose the status of a bail application pending before a superior court is unacceptable.

An FIR was lodged at the Mohan Garden police station following a complaint by the mother of a 15-year-old girl, who accused a family acquaintance of repeatedly sexually assaulting her, threatening her, and compelling her into silence.

In its ruling, the Delhi High Court noted that the accused’s prior bail applications had been rejected by the trial court on May 13 and July 10, 2025. While the bail request was pending before the Delhi High Court and scheduled for a hearing on September 24, 2025, the trial court granted bail to the accused on September 4, 2025, after the victim turned hostile during her testimony.

Justice Sharma noted that the pending bail application was "well within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer", who had explicitly stated in his reply before the trial court that the accused’s bail request was pending before the Delhi High Court and scheduled for September 24.

"Despite this clear assertion, the learned trial court proceeded to entertain and decide the bail application," the high court remarked, stressing that judicial propriety mandates that lower courts exercise caution when similar matters are pending before a superior authority.

Highlighting the need to discourage parallel or simultaneous proceedings to avoid forum shopping and conflicting rulings, Justice Sharma stated: "Judicial discipline is not merely a technicality; it serves a vital purpose by ensuring that courts speak with one voice, preventing conflicting or overlapping orders on the same matter, and maintaining the hierarchical structure of the judicial system."

Despite these findings, the Delhi High Court declined to revoke or modify the bail already granted.

"At this point, it would not be fitting to restrict the liberty that has already been granted to the applicant," the order indicated, observing that bail had been awarded on merits after both the victim and her father turned hostile.

Justice Sharma further warned that permitting such practices to persist "would have serious consequences for the administration of criminal justice" and reiterated that all bail applications must compulsorily disclose whether any similar application related to the same FIR and accused is pending before any other court.

"It shall also be the obligation of the Investigating Officer to inform the court about the pendency of any bail application submitted by the accused in any other court," noted the Delhi High Court.

Furthermore, the court directed that a copy of the judgment be disseminated to the Principal District and Sessions Judges of all district courts in Delhi for communication to judicial officers to ensure compliance.