Supreme Court denies bail to IPS officer who used fake WhatsApp profile of former Patna High Court CJ

The Supreme Court recently took serious note of an allegation that a senior police officer had created a fake WhatsApp profile of a former Patna High Court Chief Justice (now a top court judge) to obtain undue benefits. [Aditya Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Anr].The Supreme Court was told that two judicial officers were also allegedly involved in helping the police officer in an attempt at forum shopping.The Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih opined that this larger issue cannot be left unattended, while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea by Aditya Kumar, the Indian Police Service (IPS) officer in question.“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 order stated..Earlier, the Patna High Court, while dismissing Kumar’s plea for pre-arrest bail, had referred the matter against the two judicial officers to the Chief Justice. The top court has now directed the Patna High Court to apprise it about the action taken against the two judicial officers in question.“The Registrar General, Patna High Court is directed to submit, in a sealed cover, complete details of what action the High Court has taken, along with copies of relevant documents, pursuant to the reference made to ‘Hon’ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate decision on the administrative side' apropos all such facts which have been noted in the Impugned Judgment," the Supreme Court order said..The apex court further ordered the Economic Office Unit (EOW) of the Bihar Police to make available the entire case diary of the related criminal case in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing, December 12..Kumar, the Superintendent of Police-rank officer who filed the bail plea, is alleged to conceived a plan with co-accused Abhishek Agrawal @ Abhishek Bholpalaka to dupe the then Director General of Police (DGP) in Bihar by creating a fake WhatsApp account using the profile picture of then Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, who is now a Supreme Court judge. It was allegedly found that the co-accused used to make phone calls to the DGP in the name of the High Court Chief Justice to get a pending case against Kumar dropped. The investigation revealed that the accused were successful in making the DGP believe that he was the High Court Chief Justice.While dismissing Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea in March this year, the High Court had perused the case diary and found the involvement of two judicial officers with the accused persons. They had allegedly tried to get Kumar’s case listed before a particular bench of the High Court, it was noted..After Kumar challenged the denial of pre-arrest bail, the top court initially granted him interim protection from arrest by an order passed in May this year.His counsel argued that investigation has been completed and whatever allegations there are against him are based on statements made by the co-accused. It was also submitted that at most, there may be some justification in charging Kumar under the Information Technology Act, but the provisions of Indian Penal Code do not apply. Ultimately, no benefit had accrued to Kumar, the Court was told..However, the EOW argued that Kumar was not a mere co-accused, but the main beneficiary of the crime, and that cogent evidence had emerged to physically link him with the co-accused.The investigating agency also said that there were chats between the two judicial officers, who were in touch with the co-accused with regard to getting matters listed before a particular bench of the Patna High Court.Considering the allegations, the Supreme Court ultimately rejected Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea and asked him to surrender within two weeks.“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 order said..Senior Advocates Siddhartha Dave and SD Sanjay, along with Advocate Ashish Batra represented the petitioner.Advocates Saket Singh, Sangeeta Singh and Niranjana Singh represented the State..[Read Order]