Patna High Court: In a case wherein the petitioner apprehended his arrest in Economic Offences punishable under Sections 353, 387, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, a Single Judge Bench of Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.* after considering the ample evidence against the petitioner in the form of electronic evidence, which not only disclosed but also established the connivance, collusion and active participation of the petitioner as a mastermind, who got the plan of posing as Chief Justice of Patna High Court and calling other officers to take decision in petitioner’s favour in a corruption case executed through a conman, rejected the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail.
Background
The present case was registered based on the written information received from the informant, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Unit (EOU), wherein it was alleged that based on confidential information that while using a specific mobile number, the user had called the then DGP, Patna, and other senior officers on mobile phone and WhatsApp call to pressurize for doing an administrative act/taking administrative decision in favour of one senior officer. On verification of such fact, the DGP informed that the user of mobile number claimed himself to be the then Chief Justice of Patna High Court and in his D.P., the photograph of the then Chief Justice was fixed, and he used to talk on his official mobile number on WhatsApp and asked to do some work on which, the DGP doubted from the tone and, accordingly, directed to take necessary action.
Further, it was alleged that for the purpose of verification the said mobile SIM was purchased by the co-accused, in the name of some other person as he had to give it to a senior police officer. On contacting the co-accused, he admitted that he had taken two SIMs on being asked by his friend, an IPS Officer (petitioner), who was close to him, and was earlier posted as Superintendent of Police in Gaya and presently he was posted in Police Head Quarters, Patna. The co-accused further submitted that recently a case against him relating to Excise Act had been closed from Head Quarter level and the petitioner had played an important role. The co-accused also submitted that during the posting of the petitioner as Superintendent of Police in Gaya, a dispute took place with the I.G., Police, wherein he wanted to implicate the petitioner. The petitioner expected the co-accused’s cooperation, and therefore, both of them decided that a pairvi was to be made to the DGP in the name of some Senior Judge of Patna High Court to close the proceeding so that he could be posted in any district. Thus, for the benefit of the petitioner, the co-accused prepared a plan and made normal calls and WhatsApp calls to the DGP in the name of the then Chief Justice of Patna High Court and took him in confidence so that he could think that the caller was the Chief Justice of Patna High Court. During this period, the petitioner provided some confidential documents on WhatsApp to the co-accused. The DGP also considered him to be the Chief Justice and addressed him in the name of Sir.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that at the request of the petitioner, the co-accused in a deep rooted conspiracy, posed as the then Chief Justice of Patna High Court, made repeated calls to the then DGP, Bihar and directed him repeatedly to get the petitioner’ case closed and to get approval from the Chief Minister of Bihar to drop the proceeding initiated against the petitioner. The Court further noted that the co-accused in his confessional statement had admitted that he was acquainted with the petitioner since last four years and by making a plan with him, he created fake WhatsApp account of the then Chief Justice and made phone calls/WhatsApp Chats and WhatsApp calls to the then DGP, Bihar for taking decision in favour of the petitioner. The Court further observed that the case diary contained ample evidence against the petitioner which fully corroborated the allegations levelled against him.
The Court noted that the involvement of two Judicial Officers in the murky transactions was also transpired as they unsuccessfully tried to make pairvi for listing the case of the petitioner in a particular Bench. The Court also noted that the electronic evidence and extracted WhatsApp chats clearly established that Namita, O.S.D., Patna High Court gave assurance to get the case listed before the particular Bench. The Court opined that “there was much more credible and clinching evidence in the form of electronic evidence, which showed their participation in the alleged crime”. The Court further opined that “when this had been happening right under the very nose of the High Court, this court could not afford to turn a Nelson’s eye to these activities and conveniently ignore it. It was high time for this Court to take a serious view of this matter on the administrative side about the conduct of these two officers, which conduct was unbecoming of Judicial Officers. Law treated all people in the same manner and did not change from person to person”.
The Court noted that during the petitioner’s posting in Gaya, he was accused of intervening to release a seized liquor consignment and a criminal case was lodged against him and it was in connection with this case that the petitioner was accused of hiring the co-accused, a conman, who tried to influence the probe by calling the DGP posing as the then Chief Justice of this Court.
The Court also opined that “special emphasis had been laid down on the corruption by powerful people as it was a settled position that a person in power was in a better position to exert his influence, abuse his power to commit the offence of corruption, like any Government Official as he was having control over public at large and the mechanization so they were in a likely position to commit the corruption, than a common man, who worked for his bread and butter without any authority. The Corruption and Bribery was a matter of serious concern and threat for the economic stability of India”.
The Court after considering the ample evidence against the petitioner in the form of electronic evidence also, which not only disclosed but also established the connivance, collusion and active participation of the petitioner as a mastermind, who got the plan executed through co-accused, held that the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and therefore, the Court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
The Court opined that since two Judicial Officers had been found to be involved in this case and there was clinching evidence against them about their involvement, therefore, the Court directed the Registry to place a copy of this order before the Chief Justice for taking appropriate decision on the administrative side. Lastly, the Court opined that “maintaining that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion, the High Court had statutory authorities entrusted with the administration of justice which must stand on a higher pedestal with sterling integrity to dispel any doubt regarding their conduct. The Judiciary was expected to remain unaffected by pressures exerted by other branches of the government, citizens or interested groups. Independence of the judiciary was one of the basic and inalienable features of the Constitution”.
[Aditya Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 841, decided on 21-3-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate, S.D. Sanjay;
Advocate Priya Gupta;
For the Economic Offences Unit: Retained Counsel Rana Vikram Singh.
*Order by: Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan