The Supreme Court in the case Aditya Kumar v. State of Bihar observed and has denied the 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 the corruption probe against him.
The bench comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih in the case observed and has denied bail wherein stating that the offences alleged were of a serious nature.
In the present case, the IPS officer is alleged to have conspired with his co accused to drop disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the allegations made 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, the calls and messages were made to the then Director General of Police, Bihar for getting decisions in his favour.
The Patna High Court in the case observed and has denied bail and he has been accused him the pre-arrest of offences under Section 353, Section 387, Section 419, Section 420, Section 467, Section 468 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has denied bail considering the gravity of the offence.
It has been directed by the court that 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 that the investigating agency to submit in a sealed cover the entire up-to-date Case Diary of the case.
The court stated that 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. Thus, this court is of the firm view that further directions are necessitated.
The counsel, Sr. Adv. Siddhartha Dave appearing 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.
It has been contended by him that no direct evidence had been found against the petitioner.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has denied the bail wherein stating that 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 referred to the case Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar, wherein it is stated 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 D haramraj v State of Haryana, wherein it stated that much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion. The court also placed Reliance on Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v State of Gujarat, wherein the court clarified that the enunciation of law qua bail would equally apply to anticipatory bail cases.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the 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.
Accordingly, the court denied the pre arrest bail.