In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a vigilance application for further investigation, fearing polygraphy tests. The Court found the apprehension unfounded, citing Section 173(8) CrPC, and disposed of the application.
The application stands disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(Cr.) No.665 of 2015
Rama Khalkho, wife of Narayan Oraon, resident of HouseNo.1, Gandhi Nagar, Hinoo, Ward No.45, P.O. & P.S.Doranda,Dist-Ranchi..................Petitioner
V E R S U S
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr.I.Sinha For the Vigilance : Mr.Shaileshb
03/ 29.10.15. The submission, which was advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that after submission of the charge sheet in a case relating to Mayoral Election, an application was filed on behalf of the Vigilance for permitting the Vigilance to go for further investigation, so far this petitioner is concerned. That prayer was allowed vide order dated 15.9.2015, which order has been challenged though the petitioner is not aggrieved with the order relating to further investigation, but the petitioner's apprehension is that she may be subjected to Polygraphy and Brain-maping Test, as such prayer had been made by the Vigilance in its application before the court below.
Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that such apprehension is unfounded as the order passed by the court below is quite categorical that the Vigilance does have right to go further further investigation in terms of provision as contained in Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On perusal of the record, I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the Vigilance.
Any apprehension raised on behalf of the petitioner that during further investigation, the petitioner would be subjected to Polygraphy and Brain-maping Test, seem to be quite unfounded.
Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
ND/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner apprehension of being subjected to Polygraphy and Brain-maping Test during further investigation is valid under Section 173(8) CrPC?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rama Khalkho
State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
Deputy superintendent of Police, City Ranchi
R.R. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
