The Supreme Court refrained from granting anticipatory bail to a police officer who posed as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on WhatsApp on account of the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences and apparent non-cooperation by the petitioner.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner was an officer of the Indian Police Service who sought relief through a Special Leave Petition against the Impugned Judgment issued by the Patna High Court. The High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner who was facing charges under Sections 353, 387, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The accusations involved a conspiracy wherein the petitioner, in collusion with others, allegedly used a false WhatsApp account impersonating the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to influence decisions in his favour.
Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that the charges against him lacked direct evidence of his active participation in the alleged conspiracy. The petitioner asserted cooperation with the investigating agency and argued that the completion of the investigation made surrender unnecessary. The petitioner challenged the credibility of statements made by the co-accused that connected him to the crimes.
The respondents contended that the petitioner, as the alleged mastermind, was the main beneficiary of the conspiracy and emphasised evidence linking him to co-accused through mobile phone tower locations. They argued that the petitioner's mobile phone was crucial for establishing the evidentiary chain and it points to his non-cooperation. The respondents asserted that custodial interrogation was necessary to explore areas that remain unexamined due to the lack of the petitioner's full cooperation. Additionally, they highlighted attempts to influence the judiciary, indicating a need for a comprehensive inquiry.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court relied on the judgment of Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529), where it was held that the need for custodial interrogation is only one of the relevant aspects to consider when deciding an anticipatory bail application. The Court clarified that even if custodial interrogation is not required, it cannot be the sole ground for granting anticipatory bail.
The Court held 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.”
While refraining from commenting on the merits, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged offences and the petitioner's apparent non-cooperation, which factored into the decision to uphold the denial of anticipatory bail.
The Decision of the Court:
The Court recognising the importance of preserving judicial integrity and public trust, ordered the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to submit detailed information about actions taken in response to the issues highlighted in the Impugned Judgment. Additionally, the Court directed the Registry to add 'Patna High Court through its Registrar General' as Respondent No.3.
Case Title: Aditya Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
Case no.: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4496/2023
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. Saket Singh, Adv., Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Adv., Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFZZr5OfftCnKzBqemUkTKbTPo1JbNZzSjRg&usqp=CAU
