LI Network
Published on: November 25, 2023 at 14:15 IST
The Supreme Court has denied Anticipatory Bail for IPS Officer to Aditya Kumar, an IPS officer and former Superintendent of Police, who stands accused of enlisting a conman to pose as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.
The alleged purpose was to exert influence over a corruption probe targeting the IPS officer. The bench, comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, ruled against granting anticipatory bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses.
The charges against the IPS officer involve conspiring with a co-accused to thwart disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
The accusations include the creation of a WhatsApp account, with the knowledge of the officer, featuring a picture of the then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court (now a Supreme Court judge). Calls and messages from this account were purportedly made to the Director General of Police, Bihar, in an attempt to secure favorable decisions.
The Patna High Court had previously rejected pre-arrest bail for the IPS officer, who now faces charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 353, 387, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 120B, along with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Supreme Court, considering the gravity of the offenses, declined anticipatory bail and directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to submit, in a sealed cover, details of the actions taken by the High Court in this matter. The investigating agency was also instructed to provide the entire up-to-date Case Diary in a sealed cover.
Referring to its decision in Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, the Supreme Court asserted that the seriousness of the alleged offenses and apparent non-cooperation by the petitioner were grounds for denying anticipatory bail.
The court emphasized that even if custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary, it cannot be the sole basis for granting anticipatory bail. Citing judicial discretion, the court also referred to the cases of Dharamraj v State of Haryana and Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v State of Gujarat.
The Patna High Court, while denying pre-arrest bail, expressed concern over corruption posing a threat to the nation’s growth and prosperity, particularly when involving individuals in uniform tasked with curbing such activities.
Case Title: Aditya Kumar V. State of Bihar