Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To IPS Officer Who Allegedly Got Conman To Pose As HC Chief Justice To Influence Corruption Probe
The Supreme Court recently denied anticipatory bail to IPS officer and former Superintendent of Police Aditya Kumar who had allegedly involved a conman to pose as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court in order to influence a corruption probe against him.A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih denied him bail stating that the...
The Supreme Court recently denied anticipatory bail to IPS officer and former Superintendent of Police Aditya Kumar who had allegedly involved a conman to pose as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court in order to influence a corruption probe against him.
A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih denied him bail stating that the offences alleged were of a serious nature.
The IPS officer is alleged to have conspired with his co accused to drop disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The allegation against him is that a WhatsApp account was created with his knowledge by his co accused, with a picture of the then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, now a judge of the Supreme Court. From this WhatsApp account, calls and messages were made to the then Director General of Police, Bihar for getting decisions in his favour.
The Patna High Court had denied him pre arrest bail. He has been accused of offences under Sections 353, 387, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Apex Court denied him bail considering the gravity of the offence. The Court also directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to submit, in a sealed cover, details of what action the High Court has taken so far in the matter. The Court also directed the investigating agency to submit in a sealed cover the entire up-to-date Case Diary of the case.
“This Court will certainly not shut its eyes to the materials unearthed, since it relates not only to maintaining purity in judicial proceedings, but upholding public faith in the system at large. We are of the firm view that further directions are necessitated” the Court said.
Sr. Adv. Siddhartha Dave, for the petitioner, argued that he has cooperated with the investigating agency so far and that the Charge Sheet was likely to be submitted soon. He also contended that no direct evidence had been found against the petitioner.
However, considering the gravity of the offence the Apex Court denied him bail.
“..this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail, majorly on account of the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences and apparent non-cooperation” the Court said.
The Court made reference to the decision in Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870 which said that even if custodial interrogation is not required it cannot by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The Court also referred to the case in Dharamraj v State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739, which said that much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion. Reliance was also placed on Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 5602 which clarified that the enunciation of law qua bail would equally apply to anticipatory bail cases.
"Corruption has always been a potential threat to the growth and prosperity of any Nation and that too by a person in uniform, who is supposed to keep curb over such activities" the Patna High Court had said while denying him pre arrest bail.
Case Title: ADITYA KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4496/2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1013