IPS officer faked WhatsApp profile of chief justice to get favours

An IPS officer wanted a promotion. So he allegedly made a fake WhatsApp account of the Chief Justice of Patna High Court to message the DGP.

The message landed on the phone of Bihar's top police officer. It appeared to come from the Chief Justice himself. The request: give this officer a favourable posting. Drop the disciplinary proceedings against him. The DGP had no reason to suspect the message was fake — until someone checked.

That someone was the Patna High Court. It denied the officer, Aditya Kumar, anticipatory bail (pre-arrest protection from custody). Kumar challenged that denial before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to step in. The question that hung over the case was simple: could a police officer who allegedly impersonated a Chief Justice to get career favours walk free before trial?

When the fake WhatsApp account was created

The scheme, according to the investigation by the Economic Offences Unit of Bihar, was elaborate. Kumar, an Indian Police Service officer, allegedly worked with co-accused persons who obtained SIM cards through four intermediaries. The SIM cards were purchased from kiosks in crowded Patna markets, their paper trails lost in the city's daily commerce. They created a WhatsApp account using the photograph of the then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. Using this impersonating account, they called and messaged the DGP of Bihar.

The messages sought benefits for Kumar — favourable postings, a quiet end to disciplinary proceedings. Screenshots of these fake chats were forwarded to Kumar to keep him updated on the operation's progress. The screenshots were printed on A4 sheets and stapled to the case diary, their pixelated edges marking the only record of a scheme that struck at judicial integrity.

When investigators came calling, Kumar allegedly refused to hand over his mobile phone. He lied about its whereabouts. The phone, the prosecution argued, was critical evidence — it could show the chain of communication between Kumar and the co-accused. Without it, the full picture of the conspiracy would remain incomplete.

Why the High Court said no to bail

The Patna High Court, through a single judge, declined anticipatory bail on March 21, 2023. The court found the allegations serious: impersonating a constitutional functionary — the Chief Justice of a High Court — to extract favours from the state's top police officer. The court also noted that Kumar had not cooperated with the investigation. He had withheld his phone. He had not come clean about the conspiracy.

Kumar then approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution (the Supreme Court's power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment of a High Court). On May 12, 2023, the Supreme Court granted him interim protection — he would not be arrested while his petition was heard. The final hearing took place on November 22, 2023. The courtroom fell silent as the bench — Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih — took their seats, the case file thick with allegations that reached the highest corridors of the judiciary.

What the Supreme Court weighed

The Supreme Court bench had to decide whether anticipatory bail was appropriate for someone accused of impersonating a Chief Justice.

The prosecution argued that the gravity of the offences was extreme. The charges included Sections 353, 387, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (covering assault on a public servant, extortion by threat, cheating by personation, forgery of valuable security, forgery for cheating, and criminal conspiracy), along with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act (punishment for identity theft and cheating by personation using a computer resource). The impersonation of a Chief Justice, the prosecution said, struck at the heart of judicial integrity.

Kumar's counsel argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary — the investigation was largely complete, and the evidence was documentary. The phone, they said, could be examined without taking Kumar into custody. They cited a line of Supreme Court precedents — Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra — to argue that anticipatory bail should not be denied merely because the allegations are serious.

The court disagreed. It held that the seriousness of the offence and the accused's non-cooperation with the investigation were decisive factors. Kumar had refused to produce his mobile handset despite repeated requests. That refusal, the court found, was not a minor procedural lapse — it was an active obstruction of the investigation. The phone could contain evidence linking Kumar to the co-accused, the SIM card procurement, and the fake WhatsApp account.

The court's central reasoning

The Supreme Court's ratio (its binding legal reasoning) was clear: anticipatory bail may be refused where the alleged offences are of serious gravity — particularly involving impersonation of constitutional functionaries and attempts to influence the judiciary — and where the accused has demonstrably not cooperated with the investigation, including withholding material evidence such as a mobile handset essential to establishing the chain of evidence. The court observed that the petitioner's conduct in refusing to produce the mobile handset despite repeated requests demonstrated a clear pattern of non-cooperation that undermined the investigation's ability to establish the full chain of evidence.

The court also held that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. The court must primarily consider the prima facie case against the accused, the nature of the offence, and the severity of punishment. The bench noted that the impersonation of a Chief Justice was not merely a crime against an individual but an attack on the institutional framework of the judiciary itself.

The bench cited several precedents — Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar CK, Dharamraj v. State of Haryana, Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v. State of Gujarat, Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra — to reinforce that anticipatory bail is not a right but a discretion, and that discretion must be exercised with caution when the allegations strike at the integrity of the justice system. The court further took suo motu cognizance (acting on its own, without a formal application) of the judicial integrity issues flagged in the High Court judgment, recognising that the impersonation scheme had wider implications for public confidence in the judiciary.

What the court ordered

The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court's order denying anticipatory bail. Kumar was directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. The court also directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to submit a report in a sealed cover on what actions had been taken regarding the judicial integrity concerns noted in the impugned judgment. The matter was listed for further hearing on December 12, 2023, with the investigating agency directed to make available the up-to-date case diary in a sealed cover. The Patna High Court, through its Registrar General, was added as Respondent No. 3 to the proceedings.

The procedural journey of the case reflected the seriousness with which the courts treated the matter. The FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Unit, Bihar, with the investigation ongoing and a charge sheet likely to be submitted. The Patna High Court declined anticipatory bail on March 21, 2023. The Supreme Court granted interim protection on May 12, 2023, before the final order on November 22, 2023, declining anticipatory bail and directing surrender within two weeks.

Why this matters for practitioners

For lawyers handling anticipatory bail applications, this case reinforces a critical point: non-cooperation with investigation is a deal-breaker. Withholding a mobile phone, lying about its location, or refusing to share passwords can turn a strong bail case into a lost one. The court will not reward obstruction, even if the accused is a senior police officer.

For the police and the judiciary, the case is a reminder that impersonation of constitutional functionaries is not just a crime against an individual — it is an attack on the institutional trust that underpins the justice system. The Supreme Court's suo motu cognizance of the judicial integrity issues signals that courts will not treat such cases as routine criminal matters but as threats to the constitutional order itself.

THE PLAY: If you are seeking anticipatory bail, cooperate fully with the investigation from day one — every withheld document or device becomes a reason for the court to say no.

The fake WhatsApp account was deleted. The screenshots survived, stapled to the case diary, their pixelated edges marking the only record of a scheme that struck at judicial integrity.