New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has expressed serious concerns over the practice of filing parallel bail applications before different courts without disclosure.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma disapproved of the fact that the accused had moved a fresh bail plea before the trial court without disclosing that a similar application was already pending before the Delhi High Court.
While declining to interfere with the regular bail already granted to an accused in an FIR registered under Sections 363, 376, and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Justice Sharma observed that curtailing his liberty at this stage would not serve the ends of justice.
“It is with a sense of disapproval, that this court notes that in the contents of the bail application filed before the learned trial court on behalf of the petitioner, it is nowhere disclosed that the present bail application had been filed before this court and notice had been issued,” the bench said, adding that such conduct “would essentially amount to suppression of a material fact”.
It stressed that every advocate is expected to act with “fairness, candour, and transparency”, and withholding the pendency of a bail application before a superior court was not acceptable.
An FIR was registered at Mohan Garden police station based on a complaint from the mother of a 15-year-old girl, who accused a neighbour known to the family of repeatedly sexually assaulting her, threatening her, and forcing her into silence.
In its order, the Delhi High Court noted that the accused’s earlier bail applications had been dismissed by the trial court on May 13 and July 10, 2025. Subsequently, while the bail plea was pending before the Delhi HC and listed for 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 observed that the pendency of the bail application before it was “well within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer”, who had expressly stated in his reply before the trial court that the accused’s bail application was pending before the Delhi High Court and listed for September 24.
“Despite this categorical assertion, the learned trial court proceeded to entertain and decide the bail application,” the high court held, adding that judicial propriety and discipline require subordinate courts to exercise caution when a similar matter is pending before a superior forum.
Stressing that parallel or simultaneous proceedings must be discouraged to prevent forum shopping and conflicting orders, Justice Sharma said: “Judicial discipline is not a mere technicality; it serves an important purpose by ensuring that courts speak with one voice, that there are no conflicting or overlapping orders on the same issue, and that the hierarchical structure of the judicial system is respected and allowed to function smoothly.”
However, the Delhi High Court refused to recall or interfere with the bail already granted.
“It would not be appropriate at this stage to curtail the liberty that already stands granted to the applicant,” the order stated, noting that bail had been granted on merits after the victim and her father turned hostile.
Justice Sharma further cautioned that allowing such practices to continue “would have serious consequences for the administration of criminal justice” and reiterated that all bail applications must mandatorily disclose whether any similar application concerning the same FIR and accused is pending before any other court.
“It shall also be the duty of the Investigating Officer concerned to apprise the court of the pendency of any bail application filed by the accused before any other Court,” observed the Delhi High Court.
It further directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to the Principal District and Sessions Judges of all district courts in Delhi for communication to judicial officers to ensure compliance.
(IANS)
