LI Network
Published on: November 26, 2023 at 17:59 IST
The Supreme Court has denied anticipatory bail to Aditya Kumar, a former Superintendent of Police and IPS officer, who stands accused of orchestrating a scheme involving a conman posing as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.
The alleged motive behind this elaborate ruse was to exert influence and manipulate a corruption investigation against the IPS officer.
A bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected Kumar’s plea for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the offenses he is accused of.
The accusations against Kumar involve a purported conspiracy to quash disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. It is alleged that his co-accused, with his knowledge, created a WhatsApp account 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 then directed to the Director General of Police, Bihar, with the aim of securing favorable decisions.
The Patna High Court had previously denied pre-arrest bail to Kumar. The charges against him include violations of Sections 353, 387, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
In light of the gravity of the offenses, the Supreme Court 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 the matter. The court also instructed the investigating agency to provide the entire up-to-date Case Diary in a sealed cover.
Referring to the decision in Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, the court emphasized that even if custodial interrogation is not immediately necessary, it cannot be the sole ground for granting anticipatory bail.
It cited the case of Dharamraj v State of Haryana, asserting that the grant of anticipatory bail, like regular bail, should be exercised with judicial discretion. The court also referred to Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v State of Gujarat, clarifying that the principles governing bail are equally applicable to anticipatory bail cases.
The court expressed its firm view that further directions in the case were warranted, given the potential impact on the purity of judicial proceedings and public faith in the legal system.
Despite arguments from Kumar’s counsel that he had cooperated with the investigating agency and no direct evidence had been found against him, the court concluded that the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offenses, coupled with apparent non-cooperation, warranted the denial of anticipatory bail.
Case Title: ADITYA KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)